Talk:Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak/Archive 1

Terminology

Isn't the right word 'Deconstructivist' rather than 'Deconstructive?---KRS 17:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No. I work in literary studies and philosophy. I've never heard anyone in the field say "deconstructivist." There's some comment on this terminological question in Talk:Deconstruction, which I disagree with, and which appears to come from deconstruction-hostile people outside the field. "Deconstructive" is the adjectival form. The "-ism" form is, in my experience, rarely used except by confused journalists.

Rbellin 21:06, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Spivak herself frequently says "deconstructivist"! I think she does it on purpose, to annoy people working in literary studies and philosophy. But pretty much nobody else in the field uses that term; I don't believe Derrida ever did, for instance. - Poetix

The phrase "deconstructivist" has been in recorded use in academic journals since 1978. Spivak used it in Diacritics journal in 1980. Search the word in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) and 2,400 publications will turn up. -- Ultraneko (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

suicide bombing

Taking up half the article with out of context quotes from her speech at Leeds, where she comments on 9/11, seems like a BLP violation. She has three or four books out, as well as a translation of probably the best known work by Derrida, yet the largest paragraph here is about a speech she gave in 2002? And there's nothing at all about her most well-known piece. And this speech was published in boundary 2 (in 2004); if we're going to cite it we should cite it directly and not take her quotes out of context to make her look like some kind of terrorist. Quoting the Jerusalem post op-ed about this is extremely tendentious at best. csloat 22:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Her allegation that terrorism is a "response to...state terrorism" is a value judgment which is definitely debatable, and not a mere description. JrFace 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Does speaking truth to power always involve censorship and dishonesty? I agree with Commodore Sloat's comment that the suicide bombing quote perhaps takes up too much space, but that just means the article should be expanded. I'm not sure why Commodore Sloat considers the Jerusalem Post a tendentious source. This avoids the more relevant question of whether Spivak has denied making these comments or whether there is proof that they were unfairly decontextualized.JrFace 08:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant the op-ed was tendentious, not the Post itself. This section violates WP:UNDUE. And if you want to quote the comments, read the whole speech, which, as I said, was published in boundary 2. Simply quoting one extremist reaction to the speech is a severe POV problem. csloat 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just looked this over again and I agree with Sloat that this section gives quite a bit more weight to this relatively minor issue than is appropriate. If we're going to quote in detail from Spivak's publications in this article, it should be illustrative of her important work. It's ridiculous to have this long an extract from a relatively minor recent piece and nothing from "Can the Subaltern Speak?" or her writing on deconstruction. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How about creating a controversy or criticism section and referencing the Edward Alexander/J-Post article there? That way there would be no suggestion that this speech was at all illustrative of her work...only that it has received some international attention. This would also solve csloat's complaints about tendentiousness, as we'd be referencing the criticism itself and not its veracity.

It may still be claimed that the issue is undue weight- that one article does not a controversy make. However, this article seems to be fairly widely cited on the Internet and other articles have referenced the same quote from Spivak's speech. Thus, it seems the onus would be on whomever hopes to show that this really isn't a legitimate controversy/criticism that deserves mention. This would require more than just labelling professor Alexander an extremist.

I'll wait for feedback before making any changes... JrFace 09:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not instead have a section on her public lectures and include reference to the boundary 2 article (quoting her in context rather than quoting what Alexander pulls out)? If you really think it's important. Frankly, I don't - and the fact that you can find this tendentious article quoted on a few blogs does not change my mind. Spivak's reputation in the right-wing blogosphere really isn't that notable or encyclopedic. Can you find any scholarly articles or books that reference Alexander's criticism? Anything that has been peer-reviewed? Spivak is reknown for her work on deconstruction and postcolonialism; insofar as this lecture can be seen as part of that project, great. The fact that someone quoted the lecture out of context in order to use her as a punching bag, however, is really not encyclopedic. If you want to start building up this article, some info about her subaltern essay or her books would be really helpful. Trying to pull out scandal from an op-ed piece is not. And taking up half the article with such scandal is particularly problematic (again, see WP:UNDUE for details). csloat 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your response isn't very convincing. Academics don't only exist in the academic sphere: they are also public figures. It's simple arrogance to suppose that only peer reviewed journals are entitled to expose academics to criticism. I'm not talking about "scandal" or using Spivak as a "punching bag." Those are your words, and apparently part of an attempt to unduly block out criticism and commentary.

I don't have access to Boundary 2, so I can't say if your claims about decontextualization are true. Do you have examples? Her use of the term "killees" instead of "victims",as Alexander points out, is, to all appearances, morally leading language that dehumanizes. Such unconventional use of language is prima facie controversial, but if you have proof that it's just a question of missing context, then I'm all ears.

But even still, NPOV isn't about handpicking controversies that we accept and blocking out those we disagree with. You're correct that Alexander's criticisms have been published in more Right-leaning publications (J-Post, The American Spectator, Frontpage Magazine, etc.), but I'm not sure how you conclude that this gives you the right to pretend that such criticisms are necessarily illegitimate and don't deserve mention.

A criticism section would include the Alexander criticism and, perhaps, others. But it could also include some sort of rebuttal. Such a rebuttal would not consist of wiki editors simply trying to relativize her words...which was what led me to my first edit of this article.

Again, I'll wait for more feedback before editing...JrFace 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember, we're not talking here about what is "illegitimate" or who is "entitled" to criticize Spivak in general. Obviously anyone, including right-wing pundits, has every right to publish whatever they please on the subject. But we are talking about how to write a good encyclopedia article about her, and what should be in that article, and the priorities of a fair, detailed, and neutral encyclopedia article do not always include universal representation of every minor squib published on the article's subject. I have to say again that I agree with Sloat here, that this is a relatively insignificant, borderline non-notable issue, and one that's fairly peripheral to what this article should be covering -- and I agree also that better sourcing of the actual published text is vital before we restore any of this material. But honestly, what this article needs is coverage of Spivak's most important work -- in my judgment, this would be mostly "Can the Subaltern Speak?" and its follow-ups, the early work on deconstruction, and the later books In Other Worlds and Death of a Discipline. Anyone interested in improving this article should really start there. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Rbellin. I never said the criticisms were "illegitimate"; only that they don't belong here. I will add that boundary 2 is easily accessible from most university libraries; you can also order copies from the Duke University Press website, or access it from various databases owned by many public libraries such as Project Muse and JSTOR. If this isn't important enough for you to go to the library to look it up, consider that it may also not be important enough for you to be investing your time and energy into an encyclopedia article on the topic. I find it disconcerting when wikipedia editors insist on inserting blog or other online content into wikipedia entries about academics when they are not willing to actually go read the work themselves or look up critical views in peer-reviewed academic sources. csloat 22:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned before that it would be great to expand the article to cover Spivak's important works. However, improving the article is not a monodimensional affair, and it seems silly to suggest that we have to choose between this and adding a criticism section (as Rbellin's last sentence suggests). Criticism sections are common in Wikipedia articles and are one way to help develop "a fair, detailed, and neutral encyclopedia article."

My mention of what arguments are legitimate and who is entitled to make them were a response to csloat's attempt to block out information that is clearly relevant to the subject at hand. The undue weight issue is a subjective question that includes an appraisal of which voices Wikipedia will/should include and which it will/should ultimately ignore. That is, we are asking which voices are legitimate enough to be entitled to be heard on this forum. Anyone familiar with postcolonial thought must realize that this sort of language-as-judgment-and-power game is unavoidable, even where the best attempts at NPOV are made. Csloat's argument is that Alexander's article should be excluded because of its supposed tendentiousness or its possibly limited circulation. My response is that supposed bias does not by itself prove that a particular criticism has no substance (see: Poisoning the well). And as for circulation, I have already written that Alexander's criticisms have appeared in at least three fairly significant publications. Admittedly, these aren't publications that I would advise anyone to base their entire worldview upon, but they do go beyond the "minor squib" and "a few blogs" characterizations made above. Again, whether or not you like my terminology, such characterizations are essentially attempts to delegitimize, disentitle and, thus, justify exclusion.

Csloat: As I requested before, if you have anything concrete to suggest that the Alexander article unfairly decontextualizes Spivak's words, I'd be grateful if you would share this information. I'm guessing from your earlier lack of a response that you either haven't actually read the speech or have drawn nothing of substance from it. Am I right?

Thanks for your pieces of advice on where to find the speech, and for your urging me to be more industrious. Good advice, both. The problem, however, is that I can't shell out $15 on every wild goose chase that presents itself. There is no indication that the Boundary 2 text shows Alexander to have made unfair use of Spivak's words. You, in fact, are the only source that I know to have made this allegation. The burden of proof is on you, and you really must show what you are basing your conclusions on.

As far as I can tell, you guys haven't- and haven't even tried, really- to make a case against starting a criticism section. It seems clear that such a section, if done appropriately, can only add to the quality of this article. I'll give it a try, and I hope that you will help to improve (and not summarily delete) it. JrFace 14:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No one here is arguing against including a Criticism section (though I will say that such sections often encourage POV forking, and drive-by editing by people who know little about the article's subject, in a way that seems worrisome to me). But I must insist that the specific section that Sloat removed should not, in my opinion, be replaced without better sourcing to Spivak's own published words rather than random journalistic reports of them. That's a minimal requirement which should not be too much of a problem. And I note that you haven't really addressed the issue of why this issue is notable or important for an encyclopedia article on Spivak, beyond repeating that it was published in a few newspapers. Not everything that's published is material for immediate addition to Wikipedia articles. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the published text of Spivak's talk from boundary 2, checking it against the quote given in the removed section, and I can't find some of the phrases that were attributed to her in the actual text. Those bits that I can find are separated by many pages, and seem (I'm guessing) to have been selected for reasons other than accurately reflecting Spivak's views. Also, I still don't really understand what purpose the section serves -- it doesn't really help readers to understand more about Spivak's work, since all it consists of is this selective quotation and the (sensationalistic) article title in which the quote appeared. If some informed commentator has argued that this passage is important and representative of Spivak's work, that needs to be cited here. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems we're more in agreement than I thought. I wasn't thinking of putting the whole block quote back in, but of explaining the nature of the criticism and giving a link to Alexander's article. Again, if anyone can find some rebuttal to Alexander, that should be explained and cited too.

I don't think the article's aim should be simply to help readers understand Spivak's work. That is clearly a relevant part of the article and we've already agreed that more space should be devoted to it. But as I mentioned before, conspicuous academic figures like Spivak are also social phenomena. Readers should be aware not merely of what Spivak meant to say, but of how she has been received and interpreted. Spivak, like any public figure, means different things to different people, and I think that an encyclopedia should try to illustrate- or at least give some sense of- the range of reactions her work, words and attitudes have elicited. I see Alexander's article as one noteworthy reaction that readers should have the option to be aware of and explore.

I think that answers the question of why i think it's important.

Csloat: To respond to your suggestion of including a list of quotes by Spivak, I think that could be a really good addition to the page. That is, in addition to a criticism/controversy section.JrFace 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I added a criticism section that I hope everyone can agree is as NPOV as one can reasonably hope for. I will admit that the picture that pops up on the link that I added isn't the best. If anyone finds that too leading, etc., feel free to change the link. I would have liked to have linked to the original Jpost article, but it apparently can't be accessed for free. JrFace 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it, and the removal was not "vandalism." Please refer to the above discussions if you have any questions about why the content does not belong here; in addition, please do not add blogs to articles as if they were reliable sources. This is explained in WP:RS. Thanks! csloat 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, nobody has a problem with there being a "Criticism" section with published criticism of her work. But if the entire content of such a section is name-calling based on out of context quotes from a blog, it should be deleted. csloat 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No reasonable person can claim that the section I wrote is mere "name calling." And as for the blog, I've noted that it was originally a Jpost article, and, really, we've been through all that. But it's ok. I'm not going to fight you and your post-reason argumentation methods. I give up. You win. Go celebrate, champ.JrFace 00:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Sorry to go back on my word. I just can't stomach your blatant hypocrisy and bullying. You need to point out specifically why you consider this source- Professor Alexander's JPost article- unreliable AS A CRITICISM. You have the burden of proof. I can't find anything in WP:RS to back up your insinuations. And if you keep deleting the criticism section without making your case then you are a vandal who deserves to be reported. (Calling others "name-callers" and calling professors "blogs" doesn't rise to the level of making a case, in case you were wondering).JrFace 02:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Sloat is correct about this, and the discussion here hardly looks like "bullying" to me. The criticism section that you're currently re-adding does not belong here in its present form, as it largely consists of summary of a single relatively non-notable source. This sole source is patently unacceptable, both by WP:RS and common sense, in a situation where it ought to be easy enough to find published critiques of Spivak that focus on what her work actually says rather than on clearly distorted third-hand accounts of it. -- Rbellin|Talk 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Sorry, my mistake. I thought you people could be reasoned with without forcing a devolution into battles of sloganeering. 1) By "bullying" I mean the fact that csloat a priori deletes the article, without making a case. The same thing happened in the discussion above, just argue from authority, deny, and physically alter contributions while resting on blatantly POV, self-righteous, political stances 2) Yes, the article is a summary of prof. Alexander's criticism of her. How many sources do you want on a single criticism? I've given the primary source for the criticism, and the criticism does focus on public comments made by her. That's part of her "work" as a public figure and reknowned academician. 3) I don't know what "common sense" you're referring to: it seems, patently, a common sense of labeling as Kunst the things you don't like. Take a look at other criticism sections on Wikipedia, and you'll see that you are setting unreasonable standards. Try and think from a pan-Wikipedia common sense and not from a platform of intellectual protectionism of your academic idols. Thanks. JrFace 09:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And just a couple more things, before you delete the criticism section again: 1) The original issue was that the big Alexander Quote was disproportionate to the article as it stood. We all agreed on that, and the issue seems to have been resolved. 2) Since that time the page has been converted into more of a paean than an objective source of information, and I haven't even objected to that, let alone start a crusade of automatic deletions. 3) If you truly fancy yourselves NPOV purists you should a) delete the philanthropy section,because that is not what she is noteworthy for (following Rbellin's reasoning) and b) delete the Lee Bollinger quote which is excessively large and obviously POV, since he has a clear interest in hyping his university and staff. As long as you don't do that, your NPOV sermonizing is unconvincing. But, you see, I'm cool with that...as long as there's a reasonable opportunity for balance. I'm not going to get excessively legalistic or resort to vague references to WP:RS as some cover for my politics or tastes. NPOV can't mean blocking out viewpoints we disagree with while actively pushing for others that are, at best, equally dubious. But that's what you guys seem to be doing. JrFace 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please stop revert-warring; I think you have already violated the three-revert rule here, but in any case repeated reverts and increasingly hostile rhetoric are not the way to convince anyone of the reasonable nature of your proposed changes. In fact, I agree with you that the Bollinger quote is fluff and should be deleted -- there are real secondary sources the article could be relying on instead. But please take another look over WP:NPOV, which you appear to misunderstand: this policy does not directly apply to quoted material, since obviously many important sources are not "neutral" in Wikipedia's sense and need to be quoted in the encyclopedia anyway, so the claim that Bollinger is "obviously POV" is meaningless. And further, NPOV has nothing at all to do with "balance" or equal representation of every view. To repeat once more, no one in this discussion disagrees with including a criticism section in the article; but I find this criticism section unacceptable when real sources and serious, notable, published critical accounts are so easily available. -- Rbellin|Talk 13:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is what I mean by "bullying." You are repeatedly deleting my contribution with no clear justification, and it's supposedly me who's responsible for some edit war? You don't even respond to my arguments, but try to win through the brute force of deletion. As I said: you have the burden of proof to make the POV argument and you've never done so. Are you that blinded by the empty rhetoric fueling your partisan censorship? I hope not, for your sake.

You've completely ignored my observation that, by your own reasoning, the philanthropy section MUST be deleted. And as for your claim that NPOV doesn't involve balance, you are patently wrong[[1]]. You guys have never explained why prof Alexander's criticism is not a valid criticism. The arguments presented have been that it's a "blog" and that you don't like it. That is "obviously POV" in a truly oppressive way.

I'm all ears and fully receptive to reason. The problem is you guys are on a scorched-earth campaign of delete-first-and-never-even-bother-to-reason. And yeah, that kind of brutality gets me worked up. I don't think there is a fairer description of what you are doing than "vandalism" through obliteration. JrFace 14:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Rbellin responded to your arguments quite clearly (as have I). Your protests of "bullying" and "brutality" do not reflect the evidence here, and are themselves more than a bit uncivil. The fact that this criticism comes from a blog invalidates it to begin with; the fact that it is a non-notable opinion about a barely notable article further establishes that it is not encyclopedic. The problem is not that it is "not valid" (although, being based on out of context quotations, it is), but that it is not notable and is not from a reliable source. csloat 15:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you, csloat, have never responded to my arguments. Arguments aren't responded to by merely claiming that they have been responded to, and repeating words like "blog." You're rehashing issues that I've responded to both recently and months ago. You seem to reason through repetition, and apparently convince yourself of your own authority and relevance. Sorry if pointing this out seems uncivil to you. To me, it is a far greater arrogance and assault on civility to try to impose silence on things that you don't like because you don't like them.

Again, if POV is the issue that is most dear to your heart, then start by eliminating the Philanthropy section and the Bollinger quote. These are equally "not notable," and don't pass muster by your own standards. Don't your double standards bother you? They bother me. That's the only thing this is all about. JrFace 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note (from WP:POINT) that Wikipedia is inconsistent, and tolerates things that it does not condone. The presence of some questionable material does not justify including other questionable material. This is not the same thing as a double standard, but I can understand why it might look like a double standard to someone who was pushing for the inclusion of a particular viewpoint rather than for a generally improved encyclopedia article. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to stick this in here unchronologically, but this is what I found at WP:POINT:

• If someone deletes information about a person you consider to be important from an article, calling them unimportant...
• do argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article.

Clearly the goal of WP:POINT isn't to justify inconsistent burdens of proof on the same page. I think my approach, though perhaps too hostile, has been pretty much exactly that which wikipedia policies recommended. And the response, as far as I can see, has been pretty indistinguishable from refusing to get the point. JrFace 10:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think the philanthropy section is non-notable -- it represents the project the subject considers most important in the present, and it has garnered media attention such as the CHE. Bollinger's comments could be trimmed but I think they are worth mentioning as well, as they illustrate the importance of the honor bestowed. And I think a criticism section is probably reasonable as soon as someone researches some. But quotes from blogs do not belong here (again, see WP:RS if there is something confusing about this). And I'm not sure that any of that "criticism" deserves more than a passing mention even if a reliable source for it were to be found -- you've got a horribly out of context set of dubious quotations from a barely notable speech. If you would like to add useful information to this article, I would strongly recommend reading her important and highly influential essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?" and providing a summary of it, or looking up criticism of that essay published in academic sources. csloat 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Csloat: I'll be busy for a couple of days. I will respond to your 2nd round of arguments, which thankfully seem to be more substantive than your past contributions/deletions. As I mentioned, I'm not pushing for some political agenda, just for a fair debate. So thanks for apparently making an effort. JrFace 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that when we will see some sort of apology for your rather vicious personal attacks and incivility? Also, do you think you might get a chance to actually read the article you are so insistent on publishing Alexander's misinterpretation of by then? csloat 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I attacked you; I feel I have responded truthfully , albeit forcefully, to your own aggressive allegations. However, if you feel I attacked you unfairly, I do apologize. My goal has been to elucidate arguments and create some meaningful dialogue. If all that's come across has been a sense of me attacking you unfairly, then I must have done something wrong, and so, yes, I'm sorry.

That said, do you mind if I respond to your second round of comments directly below each of the enumerated points?

Also, I would definitely read the speech if someone forwarded it to me. However, like I've said before, I don't think our interpretation of the speech is really the relevant issue here. JrFace 00:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't believe you personally attacked me, we're not going to be able to communicate adequately. You have characterized my comments as "malicious," "evasive," "coercive," "disingenuous," and accused me of "bad faith," a "smear campaign," and "actionable libel." You accused me throughout the discussion of "bullying" and "brute force." The mediator you requested agreed that such comments seemed like personal attacks. It's a really unproductive way to start a discussion.

I'd prefer you didn't create confusion by putting your arguments under the section for my comments. You should make a separate section if you really feel the need to argue point by point, and copy the arguments. I just get worried that it is sometimes hard to tell who is saying what when you break up someone else's comment with your responses.

I'm glad to hear you "would definitely read the speech if someone forwarded it to you." But what is keeping you from the library? As I said earlier, you seem heavily invested in publishing a criticism of the speech; why do you have no investment in actually reading it? It seems a bit odd. csloat 00:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything has to be seen in its larger context. I don't think at any point in my arguments I have resorted to dishonesty, and I think I've rested all of my claims on pretty clear examples. That said, there's more to meaningful discourse than just proving one's case at all costs. In apologizing to you, I'm not admitting to being the only one to blame; just recognizing that I am not blameless. Swallowing one's pride is sometimes good medicine.

As for the speech, I think I mentioned that the libraries I have access to don't have Jstor subscriptions that include Boundary 2. Sometimes things seem more odd than they are. JrFace 12:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MedCab Mediation

I have accepted this case in response to a mediation request made here. I come to this case with no prior opinion on the subject, no prior involvement with the article in question, and without knowing or having conversed with any of the editors involved in the dispute. Mediation services provided by the Mediation Cabal and the editors who take on case requests are an informal mediation alternative, and the opinions I express are in no way binding. My job is to help the disputing editors (listed as Rbellin, Commodore Sloat, and JrFace) and other interested editors build consensus concerning the disputed content, and to direct editors' attention to relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies toward that end.

To avert an endless revert war, I suggest that the editors leave the disputed section alone while we try to work toward consensus (the criticism section is not currently included in the article). In suggesting this, I am not endorsing the article in its current state, but rather encouraging dialogue and consensus building as a constructive alternative to back-and-forth reversions.

At this stage, I am soliciting comments from the concerned parties regarding the nature of the dispute and ideas about how it might be resolved. I ask that editors make comments under their own heading, listed below. Also, please remember to keep it civil and refrain from personal attacks or accusations of bad faith. We're all here to make Wikipedia better, even if we have different opinions on how best to do that. Thank you. Nick Graves 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Rbellin

I concur completely with Sloat's comments below. This is a matter for an RfC, not mediation; and I've already presented my view on the specific content dispute at great length on this Talk page. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Commodore Sloat

• JrFace version
• Everyone else version
• Diff highlighting the contested material

(Note there have been some other changes more recently that are not contested here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems simple enough and hardly warrants MedCabal's attention; I'm surprised other dispute resolution methods such as a topic RfC was not tried first. Anyway, here are the issues. First, the quoted criticism does not meet WP:RS; the source is a blog. Second, the section gives undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. The fact that one non-notable critic appears to have written an op-ed falsely accusing the subject of promoting terrorism is hardly encyclopedic. The full speech at issue is available and nobody who reads it comes to the conclusion promoted by JrFace; in fact, some of the alleged quotations do not even appear in the speech, and the ones that do appear are taken totally out of context. JrFace, for his part, has announced his refusal to even look at the speech itself, which makes it odd that he is so insistent on adding this material to the article. I think it would be great if he actually read the speech; he might find himself less committed to enshrining this particular misrepresentation of it in an encyclopedia article. Third, this is a biography of an academic; we need to be very careful about making the potentially libelous (and demonstrably false) claim that this academic supported the suicide attacks of September 11th. Fourth, this is not notable criticism. There are many notable areas in which Spivak has been criticized; this is simply a fringe voice about a single speech that she gave (a speech that has attracted very little scholarly or media attention and commentary). Spivak's 1988 article "Can the Subaltern Speak?" by contrast, has been extremely influential. To have a paragraph about this speech and to have not even a sentence about this influential essay seems bizarre. Finally, nobody is objecting to having a "Criticism" section (although such sections are generally discouraged in BLPs). The problem we have is with a section based on a blog making non-notable and demonstrably false claims that defame an academic. csloat 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to JrFace's arguments below:

(1) blog -- if we use this at all we must link to the Jpost or not have a link at all and cite the complete source; linking to a self-published web page (whether or not you consider it a "blog") is a problem due to WP:RS.

(2) non-notable critic -- the fact that this guy is notable in his own right as a scholar of Irving Howe or whatever does not make him a notable critic of Spivak. There are no third party articles about Alexander's critique of Spivak. There are no discussions in academic circles about the validity (or even the existence) of Alexander's critique. Notability requires context, and in this context, Alexander is not notable.

(3) Fringe viewpoint -- the view that this well-known scholar is a supporter of suicide bombing or whatever is certainly a fringe viewpoint. Again, you will never hear such nonsense taken seriously at any academic conference, or read about it in any refereed article. The only place you hear it is in this one op-ed.

(4) the content of the paragraph -- Jrface says that the paragraph makes no suggestion that spivak supported the 9/11 attacks. This is what is in the paragraph he is insisting on: ""Alexander has accused Spivak of giving moral justification to suicide attacks such as 9/11." You can nitpick about whether moral justification is the same as "support," but nevertheless the defamation is pretty clear.

(5) JrFace says that he left out the parts of the article that call Spivak "evil" and actually make the claim that she supports terrorism. I'd like to know on what basis he determined that those parts of the article are not notable yet this other section is notable. I don't think there's a clear standard here.

(6) JrFace says I am not a reliable noteworthy source of information for judging these claims. Whether I am noteworthy is not at issue - I am not trying to cite myself here. But I certainly am more reliable than JrFace; I have actually read the speech in question (as well as a fair bit of Spivak's other work), whereas JrFace has explicitly refused to read the speech (and I find it unlikely that he has read anything else by Spivak, though I would welcome being corrected on that point). But I'm not sure why that is here nor there.

(7) JrFace says I speak for all mankind. I am not sure I understand his point, but I will add the caveat to everything I say that I am not speaking for all mankind.

(8) He accuses me of "jaw-droppingly bad faith." I'd direct him to WP:AGF on that point, and I would underline what the mediator said about keeping things civil; let's discuss the arguments and not the individuals.

(9) He says he doesn't want to spend $20 to read the article. I would suggest some good libraries; if you live near a university or public library you can probably find this journal. If you don't think it's worth reading it, why are you so invested in publishing criticism of it in an encyclopedia?

(10) He calls reading the article a "wild goose chase." I find that characterization a bit ridiculous.

(11) He accuses me of "coercive incitement to violate wiki policies." I'd again urge a review of WP:AGF. He accuses me of demanding original research; that is not true. I am suggesting research, not original research. Reading a published article is not original research.

(12) He says we should give specifics on what is taken out of context in the speech. The statement "there are no designated killees [sic] in suicide bombing" is taken out of context. In fact, the whole claim that the speech is about justifying suicide bombing is completely false. Very little of the speech (about 4.5 of 30 pages, or less than 1/6th of it) is even directed at the question of suicide bombing. And those 5 pages are completely distorted. It is completely out of context to quote the above clause without quoting more directly relevant passages such as, "It is in this belief -- not to endorse suicide bombing but to be on the way to its end, however remote -- that I have tried to imagine what message it might contain." (p. 93) Or the even more categorical comment, "Single coerced yet willed suicidal 'terror' is in excess of the destruction of dynastic temples and the violation of women, tenacious and powerfully residual. It has not the banality of evil. It is informed by the stupidity of belief taken to extreme." (p. 94) Or the simple announcement that, referring to the education of suicide bombers, "I have no sympathy for those who train the young in this way." (p. 96) But most importantly, the passage as quoted is a complete fiction; it does not appear at all in the published version of the speech. Here is the closest I could find to this statement:

“ Where "terror" is an affect, the line between agent and object wavers. On the one hand, the terrorists terrorize a community, fill their everyday with terror. But there is also a sense in which the terrorist is taken to be numbed to terror, does not feel the terror of terror, and has become unlike the rest of us by virtue of this transformation. When the soldier is not afraid to die, s/he is brave. When the terrorist is not afraid to die, s/he is a coward. The soldier kills, or is supposed to kill, designated persons. The terrorist kills, or may kill, just persons. In the space between "terrorism" as a social movement and terror as affect, we can declare victory. Although civil liberties, including intellectual freedom, are curtailed, and military permissiveness exacerbated, although racial profiling deforms the polity and the entire culture redesigns itself for prevention, and although, starting on September 28, 2001, the UN Security Council adopts wide-ranging antiterrorism measures, we can still transfer the register to affect and say, "We are not terrorized, we have won." And the old topos of intervening for the sake of women continues to be deployed. It is to save Afghan women from terror that we must keep the peace by force of arms. I want to distinguish the suicide bomber, the kamikaze pilot, from these received binaries. ”

To summarize this paragraph as a justification of suicide bombing is completely off the wall.

(13) He says notability is a subjective standard. True, but we have guidelines to help with the subjectivity. In this case it is pretty clear the criticism is not notable in this context.

(14) He says the undue weight argument is the one good argument but that it is "unconvincing." However, I find it entirely convincing. The paragraph he wants to include gives undue weight to a fringe view that completely distorts its subject.

(15) He accuses me of "bad faith" again and states that my actions are "disingenuous and evasive" and "largely malicious." I must once again direct him to WP:AGF and add WP:NPA; I don't appreciate those claims at all and I hope that won't happen again. csloat 05:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by JrFace

Let me begin by noting that I have felt compelled to appeal to MedCabal mediation to try to counter aggressive attempts to make this page conform to a specific substantive POV. The other editors have resorted to the brute force of deletion, instead of showing any true willingness to negotiate based on the points that I have raised. Because I have been outnumbered 2 to 1, my arguments have not been duly addressed. I, myself, have taken great pains to respond to, I believe, all of the relevant issues raised by the other two editors involved in this dispute, only wishing for some degree of reason and fairness.

Seeing that this was not forthcoming on the talk page, I felt that, perhaps, an outsider would more clearly see how unbalanced the degree of respect shown has been on this page. By "respect" I don't mean formality, and I admit to having impolitely given in to my frustrations on certain occasions; what I mean is giving due weight to all arguments made, offering reasonable counter-arguments, and not resorting to repetition of debunked claims without even attempting to counter the debunking.

Let me apologize in advance for my verbosity, but I think it is necessary to show why virtually everything csloat has mentioned above reveals the bad faith that underlies these editors' attempts to block out my contribution to the page.

First, to rebut the enumerated claims raised by csloat:

1) "The source is a blog"-- The source, in fact, is not a blog and it is truly astounding that, at this point, csloat keeps blindly insisting that it is. The original article appeared in the Jerusalem Post January 10, 2003. I linked to the original article posted at a blog, but only because the article is not available for free at the JPost website. Being available on a blog does not turn a source into a blog. If csloat means to claim that the JPost is itself an unreliable source or a blog, he will need to actually make that argument and meet some minimal burden of proof. Wikipedia itself[[2]] suggests that this publication is widely considered to be a reliable, noteworthy source.

2) "A non-notable critic"-- The article cited in the criticism section was written by Edward Alexander who is emeritus professor of English literature at the University of Washington.[[3]] As such, he is, by any objective standard, an expert in a field of studies that overlaps with Spivak's work. Thus, csloat will need to make a case beyond mere name-calling, exaggerations and demagogy as to why this author is supposedly a "non-notable critic." From his not having done this, one can only conclude that the assertion has been principally informed by nothing more than the editor's own political preferences.

"Fringe Viewpoint"-- As an article published in a mainstream source, by a University of Washington emeritus professor, the criticism itself cannot be presumed to be a "fringe viewpoint;" certainly not by wikipedia's standards [[4]] Csloat's best attempt to counter this argument, up until now, has been to keep repeating the false accusation that the article's source is a blog. Yes, it has received attention on the blogosphere-- the right-wing blogosphere to be precise, if that makes a difference-- but such attention cannot take away from an article's legitimacy. If anything, this attention, though, perhaps, not notable in and of itself, shows that the original non-fringe criticism has, in fact, had a certain resonance in the public sphere. Admittedly this attention and resonance has probably not been seen in the political spheres that csloat and Rbellin seem to identify with, but we really shouldn't be basing Wikipedia edits on our political cliques and beliefs.

Of note here, is the repeated allegation put forth by the others that I am just trying to push some political agenda. I believe this has been used as a tool to avoid having to offer reasonable responses to my arguments. So let me clarify: I make no claim that Alexander is right or that I agree with him. My only platform, so to speak, is that of presenting this notable criticism in such a way that readers may be aware that it exists and judge its validity for themselves. I believe the section I wrote is quite fair in this respect.

3) My proposed contribution to a criticism section makes no suggestion, let alone "claim," that Spivak "supported" the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps csloat needs to step outside of his politics to see that. The section, as written, is an objective and toned-down report of a notable criticism that has been leveled against Spivak. There is nothing libelous about discussing criticisms that have been made in the public sphere, published, and have received some degree of attention. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous, laughable to anyone with even a minor grasp of the legal arguments csloat is pretending to wield, and should be troubling to anyone concerned with keeping Wikipedia reliable and relevant.

"An op-ed falsely accusing the subject of promoting terrorism"-- Csloat is wrong to assert that the article cited in the criticism section even suggests that Spivak promotes terrorism. The title of the article is "Evil educators defend the indefensible." I myself feel that it is an exaggeration to call Spivak "evil," or even a defender of terrorism, and, for this reason, left the title out of the criticism section I wrote. The gist of the article, however, in relation to Spivak, isn't that she has promoted, supported, or even defended terrorism. Alexander argues simply that she employs terminology that blurs moral distinctions. This is what he is alluding to when he implies that Spivak's words "give moral justification" to terrorism. Here's an example of the article's discussion of Spivak's terminology:

Here is what Lionel Trilling called the language of non-thought employed to blur the distinction between suicide and murder, to obliterate the victims "no designated killees" here! metaphysically as well as physically.

These lines come in the context of a sort of warning as to the potential dangers of moral obscurantism in academia. Is that what Csloat is referring to as a "false accusation?" Again, csloat you'll need to do more than try to slander Alexander (and me) to make your case. But first, please acknowledge that you yourself are not a reliable, noteworthy source of information for judging whether these claims are "false". I think anyone can see that such questions -- despite csloat's assurances-- have no definitive or final answers, and are matters that reasonable people can and do disagree on.

"The full speech at issue is available and nobody who reads it comes to the conclusion promoted by JrFace" -- That's quite an allegation, for two reasons. 1) Because, I myself have not drawn any definitive conclusion from Alexander's article. I find it interesting and relevant, and perhaps someday will come to some conclusion. And 2) Csloat presumes to speak for all of mankind. What I hope all observers will note through this haze of vacuous overstatement and presumption is the fact that csloat has at no point offerred any indication that he has in fact read the speech or the article. He has at no point in the course of our discussion, offered any specific substantive criticism of the article's supposed faults.

"JrFace, for his part, has announced his refusal to even look at the speech itself"--Csloat has, in jaw-droppingly bad faith, alluded to my "refusal" to read the original speech. What actually transpired is that csloat alone, and citing no authority, made the allegation that the article was an unfair representation of the speech. When asked for specificity, there came silence. Csloat, let me repeat, has made no indication that he has actually ever read the article, or the speech or found anything to support his claims. Additionally, I never refused to read the speech, I simply didn't have access to it without paying something like $20. In my "refusal" I tried to point out to csloat that wiki editors can't be expected to have to waste money trying to decide whether his own unsubstantiated claims have any merit. However, it seems, Mr. Sloat has better things to do with his time than absorb or respond to such trivial commentary from a wayward philistine such as myself.

But let's take a step back: the fact of the matter is that wiki editors should refuse to be sent on such wild goose chases. For one, editors should not act as autocrats making bad faith demands for diligence that they themselves, by all indications, do not live up to. But more importantly, wiki editors are not supposed to be scholars doing original research. In this context, csloat's urging me and Rbellin (who apparently did read the speech) to read what he hasn't and to base editing on our own substantive conclusions, is basically coercive incitement to violate wiki policies. The false and inconsistent burdens of proof and diligence applied by csloat are truly problematic and, I believe, undermine any fair or useful notion of NPOV editing. I'm left to wonder whether there are no wiki procedures for disciplining such willful attempts to undermine wikipedia policy, not to mention the harassment that has gone hand-in-hand with it.

"In fact, some of the alleged quotations do not even appear in the speech, and the ones that do appear are taken totally out of context"-- Again, I encourage csloat or Rbellin to fill such generalized accusations in with real substance. At that point, it would actually be a matter that we could discuss meaningfully. You seem to like talking law so I'll phrase it thusly: try thinking in terms of real cases and controversies. It's hard to resolve vague, aggressive generalizations such as yours.

However, I should also point out that this sort of criticism of csloat's is fundamentally a red herring. Csloat's arguments made sense back when the Spivak page included a large block-quote from Alexander's article which apparently (according to Rbellin) cherry-picked from her speech. However, they are not applicable to the criticism section now being proposed. What is at issue in the new criticism section is not the original speech at all, but what I've already established to be the notable article and criticism written by Alexander. I hope that's clear. The article quotes this speech, but merely as an example of the sort of moral blurring that Alexander accuses her of. So really, the whole framing of the issue by csloat is quite slanted. It's not a question of truth vs. falseness or of one particular speech as csloat would have it. It's, actually, more a question of how one academic has viewed and criticized the nature of some of Spivak's work. But let me reiterate, even if it were a question of some "demonstrable" falseness as csloat wants readers to believe, he, as a wiki editor, should not be engaging in or promoting original research to resolve such issues. Csloat, I know it hurts, but you are a non-notable source, just like me, the philistine.

Now let's look at the actual wording that I used in my proposed-and-deleted contribution to the Spivak page. I think it makes its own case:

"Prof Edward Alexander has accused Spivak of giving moral justification to suicide attacks such as 9/11. He bases his allegations on comments made by Spivak in June 2002 at Leeds University wherein suicide bombing was described as "autoeroticism" and "an act inscribed on the body when no other means will get through." In this same speech Spivak maintained that, "there are no designated killees [sic] in suicide bombing." Alexander suggests that such language intentionally serves to relativize murder and blur questions of morality and culpability."

I hope it's clear how objective that section is and that I, personally, have made no allegations against Spivak, nor encouraged readers to do so. Readers are informed of the nature of part of Alexander's criticism and are left to judge for themselves the language cited, whether it supports Alexander's claims, and what degree of attention it merits from them. It isn't, or at least shouldn't, be the role of wiki editors to make that judgment for them, not when the source is notable.

In an effort to accentuate the NPOV nature of my contribution, and to appease the deleters-that-be , I intentionally left out the more radical comments quoted by Alexander. [see here [5]] What I have left is the gist of general the criticism that Alexander was making. I actually, foolishly, expected to be praised for that.

4) "This is not a notable criticism"-- Notability is ultimately a subjective judgment. However, to meet any basic NPOV threshold, we must look not at our own tastes, but objectively at what reasonable people tend to find notable. I think we can all agree that an article published by a mainstream source by a professor emeritus is prima facie notable. The burden of proof, as mentioned above, is on csloat/Rbellin to demonstrate why this presumption shouldn't apply or has been overcome.

5)"No one is objecting to a criticism section"-- This comment sounds fair but is misleading. It's an attempt to hide the fact that these two editors are unreasonably blocking my edit for what, looking at the totality of the circumstances, would appear, I think, to any reasonable observer, to be fundamentally a matter of political preferences. This apparent policy of any-criticism-but-the-ones-we-don't-like is, in my opinion, a grave threat to promise and spirit of wikipedia.

One other issue raised by csloat:

"Undue Weight"-- In all fairness, this is the rationale that could most support the argument for excluding the criticism section. However, in the context of the page as it now stands, this argument is unconvincing.

A preliminary question: Is this criticism the reason why Spivak is encyclopedic? No, absolutely not. But she is also not encyclopedic because of her apparent philanthropy or the fact that she has a boss who is ready to justify her promotions by praising her. We all seem to agree that such information is fine and in the interest of offering a broader picture of what Spivak means to different people and in different contexts. Alexander's criticism is simply one additional viewpoint showing what resonance Spivak has had, and what responses she has generated. It is particularly relevant, perhaps, coming from another academician of standing in the same general area of studies as Spivak. However, the article cited isn't and doesn't pretend to be a formal academic work. It is more of an editorial that reflects, most directly, upon things that Spivak has pronounced in public.

The other editors have, in the past, suggested that only criticisms made in scholarly journals should even be considered for inclusion as criticism in this article. They haven't specified where that imaginary standard comes from. It seems a sui generis attempt to block out this particular criticism and it is clearly an unworkable standard. Spivak is a notable public figure. Her fame is based on her work as a translator, an author, and as a professor, and there is no reason to consider, for example, a speech as anything less than a work of her authorship. It is a message that she has attempted to convey to a certain sphere of the public, and a sign that her work and influence are not confined to academic journals. Alexander's article is a response not only to the speech, but to Spivak's contribution to the public and academic spheres in general. It's silly to suppose that academicians may only be judged through purely academic channels, especially when they have become public figures. It seems a supposition that has no basis in wikipedia's policies or practices.

The other editors seem, at very least, to be applying a double standard in their willingness to give undue weight to tangential matters (the philanthropy section and the Bollinger quote are the clearest examples) that paint Spivak in a favorable light, while holding Alexander's criticism to some absurdly high, created-on-the-fly standard. There is no explanation for this, I think, apart from their insistence on pushing for a particular POV, and their apparent attempt to block out others.

To sum up:

--The accusation that the criticism's source is a blog is a lie, apparently made in bad faith.

--The accusation that Alexander is a "fringe viewpoint" is prima facie false, and the accusers' passing attempts to smear a professor emeritus and/or the JPost have not risen to the level of any sort of real counterargument.

--The undue weight argument is unconvincing given a) these editors' apparent low standard for including/accepting other material as long as it casts Spivak in a favorable light, b) the modest size of the criticism section as written, and c) the fact that, while citing bits of a specific speech, Alexander, a fellow academic, is making a broader comment on the nature of Spivak's work.

--The accusation that Alexander's article makes false accusations is itself unsubstantiated original research by csloat. As such, one would hope it would not play a dominant role in the editing process.

--The allegation that this article is "not notable criticism" is a reflection of csloat's own value judgments, it does not reflect any objective interpretation of what reasonable people, or wikipedia policy, mean by "notable."

--Csloat would do well to turn his purported quest to end "defamation" inward. Alexander's observations reveal one manner of viewing certain aspects of Spivak's work, but are by no means defamation, nor can any self-respecting thinker claim them to be "demonstrably false." The irony here, is that csloat's own patently false mischaracterizations and smear campaign would themselves, be more likely to qualify as legally actionable libel.

A note in closing:

Csloat is, perhaps, right to assert that the criticism section itself is not such an important issue to warrant this whole mediation process. What is an important issue, however, are the bad faith attempts to silence legitimate and notable viewpoints that this page has suffered. I hope it is clear to any reasonable reader that csloat's claims are not only disingenuous and evasive, but largely malicious. I for one have no problem with swallowing my pride and not prevailing. I do have a problem, however, with allowing pseudo-reasoning, arrogance, doublespeak, and intellectual bullying to prevail just because I am outnumbered. Thanks. JrFace 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Nick Graves

Thanks, everyone, for your statements. Rbellin and CSloat believe that informal mediation is not warranted at this point. It is true that WP:RFC is a step recommended before informal mediation. Also, JrFace has said that s/he desires one or more outside views on the matter. An RfC would be an excellent resource for that. Here is my suggestion: How about if we put the informal mediation on hold for now while JrFace files a brief request for comment? If that does not resolve the issue, we can then proceed to the next recommended step by going ahead with this informal mediation. Is this acceptable to everyone?

Also, please remember to keep it civil. From what I've seen of the situation, nothing rises to the level of "bullying" or use of "brute force," and characterizations to that effect are not likely to help resolve the content dispute. Some of the other adjectives used with regard to the actions of other editors could be reasonably seen as personal attacks. Please focus comments on the content of the article, not the editors. Thank you. Nick Graves 03:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

JrFace has agreed to file an RfC, and csloat has agreed with this proposal. Since Rbellin has not objected, I'll assume that s/he consents as well. I will wait to see if the three of you and the commenting editors can work out a consensus. I will take up informal mediation again only if the content dispute remains. Nick Graves 16:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the mediation at JrFace's request. I am glad to see editors working through their differences of opinion constructively on the talk page. I will continue watching, and may offer my opinion (strictly as a fellow editor) if I have time, and if I believe it might help. Nick Graves 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

New Criticism Section

In the interest of sparing everyone more of my verbal outpourings, and to avoid repetitiveness, I am temporarily going to forego continuing my debate with csloat, and try for a more practical approach.

• I would like to propose the following as a criticism section:

Terry Eagleton has complained that Spivak's writing is "opaque" and "inaccessible to the public." [6] Farrukh Dhondy has written that Spivak's use of "recondite argot" makes it impossible for the reader to be sure of her intended meaning.[7] One critic has gone so far as to suggest that Spivak's stylized, obscure language may serve to blur important moral distinctions in contemporary politics.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939558/posts]

In Spivak's defense, Judith Butler has noted that this supposedly inaccessible language has, actually, resonated with, and profoundly changed the thinking of, "tens of thousands of activists and scholars." [8]

• My hope is that the section written this way resolves the core issues that were dividing us. What do you think?
• Would everyone be okay with linking to Alexander's article posted on the Free Republic, or would you prefer the Jerusalem Post's article abstract? JrFace 23:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Eagleton quotation is so out of context it is ridiculous. Which sentence are you quoting the word "opaque" from, this one:

You do not need to hail from a shanty town to find a Spivakian metaphorical muddle like ‘many of us are trying to carve out positive negotiations with the epistemic graphing of imperialism’ pretentiously opaque.

or this:

There is, to be sure, a great deal more to be said for post-colonial studies than that, and Spivak herself says much of it in these pages. Whatever its romantic illusions and secret self-regard, this most rapidly growing sector of literary criticism signals the entry onto the Western cultural stage, for the first time in its history, of those the West has most injured and abused. There can thus be few more important critics of our age than the likes of Spivak, Said and Homi Bhabha, even if two of that trio can be impenetrably opaque.

and similarly "inaccessible to the public":

In US academia, however, such popularising or plumpes Denken is unlikely to win you much in the way of posh chairs and prestigious awards, so that left-wingers like Spivak, for all their stock-in-trade scorn for academia, can churn out writing far more inaccessible to the public than the literary élitists who so heartily despise them.

If you want to cite Eagleton that's fine but obviously we should cite him in context. But in general I think it is a bad idea to summarize book reviews of this type by pulling out the most negative terms you can find in them and quoting them as if they summarized everything that was written. Of course, I'm not objecting to including in a criticism section the claim that some have criticized her for being difficult to understand. But there is no need to turn that claim into something it is not. To answer your other question, I can't see any situation in which linking to the Free Republic website would make sense on the Spivak page. I also don't see how the op ed piece is notable here, and I have already made the case in that regard above. csloat 00:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm starting from the idea that a criticism section shouldn't be too long, so as to avoid undue weight issues. I'm just trying to give a taste of what kinds of criticism, including Eagleton's, there have been, and so I think it's unfair to characterize what I have written as "ridiculous." But I will rephrase things in a slightly modified proposal below.

Free Republic Post- Do you mean that an article posted on the Free Republic isn't usually considered sufficiently reliable for wikipedia? I don't think reliability, in this specific sense, depends on the subject matter of a particular page. Perhaps we can consult the Noticeboard to get some input on that. And just to be clear, I would favor linking to the whole article not because it is more damning but because it is a clearer picture of the argument being made. What I, personally, find to be the most relevant aspects of Alexander's argument are the references to Orwell and Lionel Trilling, not the block-quote.

As for the notability issue, let's put that on hold for the moment. The section could obviously be added without including Alexander's criticism. It seems pretty clear that I would argue for its inclusion, while you would argue against it. I doubt that we'll be able to see eye to eye on the matter, so I would first suggest waiting to hear what other editors think, and then, if either of us are not satisfied, make a request for comment.

Here is a slightly modified version:

Critics such as Terry Eagleton have complained that Spivak's writing is opaque and inaccessible to the public. [9] Farrukh Dhondy has written that Spivak's use of "recondite argot" makes it impossible for the reader to be sure of her intended meaning.[10] One critic, Edward Alexander, has gone so far as to suggest that Spivak's stylized, often obscure, language may serve to blur important moral distinctions in contemporary politics.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939558/posts]

In Spivak's defense, it has been argued that this sort of criticism reveals an unwillingness to substantively engage with her texts.[11] Judith Butler has noted that Spivak's supposedly inaccessible language has, actually, resonated with, and profoundly changed the thinking of, "tens of thousands of activists and scholars." [12]

Again, feedback would be appreciated. JrFace 13:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to post about the freeper site on the Noticeboard, but you could also just read WP:RS. I'm sure you find references to Orwell and Trilling interesting but as I have shown above they are really not relevant to this article. What it comes down to is a non-notable and demonstrably false argument that is essentially an ad hominem. I'm happy to hear what others think about the issue and I'm wondering why you still haven't tried the RfC.

Your revised paragraph is equally unacceptable for the same reasons as the previous one. The Eagleton and Dhondy quotes are laughably out of context. Where does Dhondy say that the "argot" "makes it impossible for the reader to be sure of her intended meaning"? Eagleton doesn't say her writing is "opaque and inaccessible to the public"; he simply says it is more "opaque and inaccessible to the public" than "the literary élitists who so heartily despise them"; i.e. people like Eagleton. And even while saying this Eagleton points out that there are "few more important critics of our age" than Spivak.

I really would suggest you read some Spivak yourself and examine why you are so invested in writing this criticism section, and in publishing Alexander's criticism in particular. csloat 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit too nitpicky and making this more tedious than it needs to be. If you notice, the subject of the first sentence as now written is "Critics such as Terry Eagleton," not Terry Eagleton, and I'm not quoting anybody. In the second sentence, I'm just giving an example of how Dhondy describes Spivak's language. The goal is not to sum up any particular articles, but just to concisely suggest the nature of how her use of language has been described and criticized.

I don't know if you have noticed the change of tone in my last few entries. The goal is to come to some common ground, which may or may not be possible. But do be aware that if you keep using language such as "ridiculous" and "laughable," I consider this not only unproductive but an attempt to offend. I suggest, at this point, we try to avoid such things.

Also, please note that by foregoing debate, I am in no way acknowledging the validity of your arguments. It's simply an effort to avoid unnecessary repetition, and an acknowledgment that, absent some third party judge, I really don't think our debates are leading anywhere: you apparently believe you have demonstrated that I'm wrong and I believe that I have demonstrated that you are wrong. Like I said, I would like other editors to chime in first to see if we can come to some consensus. But until then, I'm in favor of avoiding outright repetition of arguments already made.

One other thing: This is an additional sentence that we could consider adding to the second paragraph above (assuming we include the Alexander criticism):

As for Alexander, Spivak herself, on prior occasion, had characterized similar arguments of his as inuendo, and twisting words out of context. [13]

JrFace 23:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) I don't think it's nitpicky to insist on accuracy. We shouldn't say "Critics like Eagleton" if we don't mean Eagleton, and we shouldn't cite Eagleton if we mean someone other than Eagleton. And we shouldn't put words in Dhondy's mouth that aren't there. Look I think all we need is a single sentence that says something to the effect of "critics find her language difficult and complex" or something like that with a footnote linking the Eagleton and Dhondy and then another sentence linking the butler article. Alexander, I have argued, doesn't belong here at all, but if we do put him here at all again one sentence is fine, but we should also include the fact that several scholars with actual expertise in her particular area (including the Editors of Critical Inquiry, who call one of his claims "libelous" and "demented") responded to that nonsense argument in Commentary (using that link you provided). Really, though, this is useful information to include on the Edward Alexander page, but it doesn't belong here -- Alexander's rant against tenured radicals mentions spivak only as an example of what he claims is a larger trend in academia.

(2) Yes I have noticed that you have toned down your verbal abuse and personal attacks ever since the mediator commented on them, but I do not feel that your implication that I have done anything uncivil is in any way warranted. I said an interpretation was laughable -- I did not say rude and demeaning things about your motives. When you accuse me of an "attempt to offend" you are doing the same sort of thing you did before. csloat 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sloat's suggestion seems reasonable. It would be ironic if we mentioned criticism of Spivak's complex language, and used complex language to do it. "Recondite argot"? Keep it simple. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, and I think you're right. How about:

Farrukh Dhondy has suggested that Spivak's writing seems to put style ahead of substance, often making it impossible for the reader to be sure of her intended meaning.[14]JrFace 20:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this hasn't answered my objections at all. First, Dhondy never says Spivak "makes it impossible for the reader to be sure of her intended meaning." That claim is, as far as I can tell, completely fabricated. Second, Dhondy is not notable as a critic of Spivak. As I said, a sentence making a more general claim summarizing the criticism (and it is all quite similar, it is a standard complaint about jargon) and a footnote linking these articles is all we need. Dhondy certainly needs no special mention here. csloat 20:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if you read the whole Dhondy article, you´ll see that I've adequately summed up the gist of it.

As to your second point, that's an important one that we will need to clarify. I think the relevant criteria are to be found in the WP:BLP criticism guidelines.

Today, I got around to looking at WP:FRINGE and WP:N and it turns out that they refer to the inclusion of separate articles and are not to be used as a direct limit on article content [see [15]]. So we should bear that in mind as we frame the issues.JrFace 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) I have. You haven't "adequately summed up the gist of it." You've offered an interpretation of what he wrote that seems fabricated out of thin air. (2) That section from WP:N is not a license to fill Wikipedia with non-notable material. I haven't cited WP:N in response to your points; I'm not sure why you are including that information here. What is specifically relevant is Spivak's notability and whether this material is actually relevant to her notability. Non-notable book reviews in non-academic sources making offhanded criticism (and, in Alexander's case, completely off the wall defamation) may not be worth including here. As I have said, this topic merits a few sentences tops and there is no reason to mention critics by name unless we have third party confirmation that this critic is an important one (e.g. an article in Lingua Franca or whatever discussing the "great Spivak-Dhondy debate or some such. WP:BLP is indeed the controlling policy here, and this part in particular is relevant: "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." csloat 23:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would call that "fabrication" a summary, and I don't think it's a problem. You don't like it, I do; let's see if AnonEMouse or anyone else breaks this apparent deadlock.

As for the BLP criteria, I'm honestly not sure how to interpret that wording. That could definitely be a winning argument for you, but I think we'll need some input as to how it is usually interpreted. I've said before- whether or not you believed me- I wouldn't mind not prevailing on this issue, I just couldn't handle not prevailing based on the arguments and reasoning you had been giving me: too diffuse. Here is where you have the chance to make me see you were right all along, but you won't do that by insulting Alexander more. What's needed is a comparison to other BLP pages' criticism sections. Again, I'd like to see what other editors say, but perhaps a request for comment would be good too.JrFace 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, I haven't insulted Alexander once. I have stated what I think of his arguments but I have not ever "insulted" him, I don't know anything about him as an individual. All I know is the arguments he has written and those arguments are absurd and defamatory. To basically accuse Spivak of supporting suicide bombing based on a bizarre misreading of an admittedly complex sentence is bad enough, but potentially understandable had Spivak not made very clear, in extremely simple and straightforward terms, that she completely rejects suicide bombing. But she did make that very clear, in passages I cited above, which makes Alexander's argument rather absurd, in my opinion. Based on the letters to the editor you linked above[16], my opinion of Alexander's argument is shared by many of the most prominent voices in the field.

As for Dhondy, you claim your "fabrication" is a "summary" and you suggest letting a third party decide. All I'm asking is for some evidence to support your summary. Which sentence or sentences in the article lead you to your interpretation?

As for BLP, you suggest comparing BLP pages. I suggest simply reading the text of WP:BLP. It is actually rather clear on these matters. csloat 10:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and in Spivak's defense I suppose, language is almost never clear... unless it is grounded in particular experience. We have to see how specific language is generally interpreted to be able to feel confident that we are interpreting it fairly. As to the BLP criteria, it says that viewpoints of a "tiny minority" should be excluded. I posted a query on the NPOV talk page asking how people interpret this. I know you believe that serious discussion in academic circles is needed, but I wonder whether double-publication of the article in generally important publications in the public sphere is enough to overcome this threshold. I think we've already seen where each of us would tend to lean on this question; what I think we need is to hear some other opinions.

Back to Dhondy: have you read the whole article? He compares her work to Don Mclean's American Pie, which, he says, is more about sound than meaning. Later, he cites a passage of Spivak's and tries an interpretation, but admits that he could be totally mistaken. I think if you look at the whole article, you'll see my sentence is an acceptable, brief summary of the points made therein.

And as for Alexander, it's true, you haven't insulted him, you focused on his arguments. Sorry to misstate that. But, again, I think the real issue to be addressed is the "tiny minority" question. We, as editors, as far as I can tell, aren't supposed to be judging the merits of a criticism, but only whether it has been made by more than a tiny minority, thus warranting mention.

After writing the above, I just discovered this. Apparently, having a separate criticism section is generally frowned upon. Perhaps we could include my proposal (with or without mention of Alexander) directly after the Bollinger quote. JrFace 11:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) BLP is astoundingly clear on the matter at hand. It may need interpretation on other items, but not on this one -- Alexander's critique is the view of a "tiny minority" (of one). And this point, which I quoted before, is unambiguous: "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." I have insisted on such sources and you have not found them; the fact that the op-ed was reprinted in the self-published Free Republic blog is not third party commentary from a reliable source.

(2) Dhondy - yes I read the article, and your interpretation is not warranted. We should not put words in his mouth; if he wanted to say what you say he wanted to say, why did he not say it?

(3) Actually the merits of the criticism are part of the issue per BLP, which also states "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons." Again, this portion of the BLP policy is unambiguous.

(4) Yes criticism sections are frowned upon - I pointed that out months ago when you started this argument. I am glad to see you are finally getting around to reading the relevant Wikipedia policies here. As I have said, i think the best way to deal with all of this is a couple of sentences stating generally (without mentioning names) that some people find her prose obtuse or intimidating, with a footnote linking the Dhondy and Eagleton book reviews. csloat 17:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation is reasonable and quite possibly right. However, I'm not certain that it is the only reasonable interpretation of that wording. I'm going to do an RfC, just to get a feel for what others think. JrFace 15:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Alexander's Criticism

(RfC removed by JrFace 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

At issue is whether a clearly hostile op-ed piece published in the Jerusalem Post and the American Spectator may be cited for the sole purpose of showing briefly (one sentence) that such a criticism has been made. A copy of the piece is posted [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939558/posts here]. The writer is a professor emeritus in English who insinuates that Spivak's use of ambiguous language may give "moral justification" to terrorist attacks.

There is no indication that this criticism has been taken seriously in academic journals. Thus, the question is whether double publication of this op-ed in two generally reputable publications is alone enough to meet BLP criticism criteria, or whether it should be excluded as the voice of a tiny minority, and/or because it lacks reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Any help interpreting this criteria would be appreciated.

Mention of the criticism in question would appear in the article in something like the following context:

Critics have described Spivak's writing as opaque and inaccessible to the public. [17] It has been suggested that her work puts style ahead of substance, often making it impossible for the reader to be sure of her intended meaning.[18] One critic, has gone so far as to suggest that Spivak's stylized, often obscure, language may serve to blur important moral distinctions in contemporary politics.[19]

In Spivak's defense, it has been argued that this sort of criticism reveals an unwillingness to substantively engage with her texts.[20] Judith Butler has noted that Spivak's supposedly inaccessible language has, in fact, resonated with, and profoundly changed the thinking of, "tens of thousands of activists and scholars." [21]

Thanks in advance for your input. JrFace 15:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that mention of the criticism by Alexander ought to be excluded on the grounds that it is the view of a tiny minority. Certainly, the words were authored by a minority of one, but since they have been published in two mainstream (though right of center, or conservative) publications, they can be seen as representing the views of more than a tiny minority. Furthermore, Alexander's criticism has been reprinted or referred to in multiple online conservative forums, which shows that it has resonated with a certain segment of the online population. Third party coverage of the criticism is only required if the author of it is "pushing an agenda or a biased point of view." Certainly, Alexander has a strong opinion about Spivak's use of language, but if having an opinion automatically constitutes bias or agenda-pushing, then no critical commentary could be mentioned in an article without third party coverage of it. I guess what I'm saying here is that I find the policy wording to be unhelpful in deciding this issue. If I had to guess the intent of the policy framers, I would say they mean to exclude reporting of fringe views without third party coverage, and I do not see Alexander's views as being on the fringe. Lack of coverage of the criticism in scholarly journals should not be a barrier to mentioning the criticism, since public views of a scholar's work are a part of their reputation, even if these views are not a serious part of academic dialogue. To provide a parallel to illustrate my point: An article covering Darwin would be incomplete without mentioning creationists' reaction to his theory of evolution, even though their views are not published in scientific journals. Finally, did not Spivak herself respond to Alexander's criticism? That she would take the opinion piece seriously enough to respond shows that it has some level of relevance to her work, even if she and others might view it as misguided. If anything, it would do a disservice to the subject not to mention Alexander's criticism in the article, as it would then be absent of any response to it. Nick Graves 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) Alexander aside for the moment, I have grave objections to the wording of the non-Alexander "criticism." First, he cites Eagleton, who has called her writing "opaque" but has also said of Spivak that "among the most coruscatingly intelligent of all contemporary theorists, whose insights can be idiosyncratic but rarely less than original. She has probably done more long-term political good, in pioneering feminist and post-colonial studies within global academia than almost any of her theoretical colleagues." I think it's unfair to pick only the negative thing Eagleton has said of Spivak when he has praised her wok in this manner. (And the fact that he felt the need to describe her as "coruscatingly" intelligent suggests that he protests a bit too much about the "opacity" of her writing). Second, the claim "often making it impossible for the reader to be sure of her intended meaning" is a complete fabrication that is not at all supported by the article linked. I have already demonstrated this ad nauseum in the discussion above. So I suggest a more general statement that her writing is considered difficult by many, linking those sources if people want to look into more detail.

(2) Do we really have evidence that this Alexander article was published in two reliable sources? Why was it published twice? The only evidence we have is from two blogs; if we can't find a citation in a reliable source I don't think we can use it.

(3) There are severe BLP issues here. This is the opinion of a minority of one person. The fact that his opinion was reprinted in blogs suggests only that people found it sensational enough to mention, not that it has any validity or acceptability to the mainstream. It is clearly WP:FRINGE and it is certainly a defamatory claim. If this is not a fringe opinion, can you tell me who else agrees with it? Is there another published scholar, or even a published commentator, who agrees with it?

(4) Since the speech in question explicitly states that Spivak is against suicide bombing, Alexander's statement was clearly made with "actual malice" and would likely be considered defamatory should Spivak decide to take legal action -- I think this is definitely the type of thing WP:BLP urges us to avoid. If we do cite Alexander's criticism we need to at the very least take care to quote Spivak's speech directly. By the way, Alexander's article includes passages allegedly quoted from the speech that do not appear in the speech at all. In other words, Alexander fabricates words to put in Spivak's mouth and then criticizes those words. In U.S. law (which leans more heavily towards free speech than, say, British law on these issues), the first amendment does not protect fabricated quotations even if they were a "rational interpretation" of the material allegedly quoted. (See Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 US 496, 1991). In this case, we know the interpretation is not rational, so it is even more egregious.

(5) WP:BLP explicitly states that "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." I have insisted on such sources and so far we have come up dry; the fact that a few blogs mention this critique is irrelevant as they do not meet WP:RS. These blogs are like a giant echo chamber repeating each other; not everything they say is notable. Nick says he doesn't think an agenda is being pushed, but I wonder whether he has read the article. Alexander is clearly pushing the agenda associating certain academics with terrorists. It is not just a matter of an opinion; it is a matter of pushing an agenda and manufacturing evidence to support that agenda even when the actual evidence that abounds runs in the complete opposite direction. It is almost as if Spivak said "I do not support suicide bombers" and Alexander quoted her as saying "I ... support suicide bombers."

(6) The comparison to Darwin and the creationists is utterly ludicrous. Origin of the Species is described in Wikipedia as "the pivotal work in evolutionary biology." It has sold millions of copies over the years and generated immense controversy. It is by far Darwin's most important and most influential work. The controversy it generated was certainly not limited to the echo chamber of a few right-wing blogs; numerous preachers, religious scholars, and commentators have denounced it for a century and a half. Meanwhile, Spivak's speech is hardly the most notable or influential work of Spivak. It was a speech she gave after 9/11; worth mentioning, perhaps, but it certainly isn't the work she is known for. And the rather absurd and hysterical argument made by one right-wing critic has not yet been taken up at church pulpits across the nation.

(7) Spivak did not, to my knowledge, respond to Alexander's criticism. She responded to a similar argument Alexander made years earlier about an article in the journal Critical Inquiry. Her response - which was joined by numerous prominent scholars - certainly applies equally to this particular defamation, but it was not a direct response to it. csloat 18:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just briefly, I want to say that several of the arguments I see above for including Alexander's comments are unconvincing. As Sloat says, the speech in question is relatively unimportant in the body of Spivak's work, so the Alexander piece is not a good representative sample of common criticisms of her work more broadly. Further, the accusation that Spivak somehow justifies suicide bombing (in addition to being demonstrably false and suggesting a very slight acquaintance with her work) is not commonly made, and in fact appears only to have been made by Alexander in this one piece. So it's not as though this issue had been widely covered in the media and attained some notability in its own right regardless of the craziness of this interpretation (as, for instance, the Edward Said stone-throwing incident might be argued to be notable in its own right because of media attention). So we are left with the question of whether a single op-ed piece/blog entry, espousing a viewpoint which no one else has demonstrably taken seriously, is notable enough to be mentioned in an article on its subject. I therefore lean towards continuing to exclude it from the article. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Csloat, you say that Alexander fabricated words for Spivak. If that is true, that would clinch it for me, and I would not support mentioning his criticism. Where can I find a transcript of Spivak's June 2002 Leeds speech? I've been looking for it, but have not turned up anything. Nick Graves 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's published in the journal boundary 2 (2004); I have a copy but it does not appear available on the internet. If you want to see what she actually said that Alexander appears to be misquoting, see my comments above, comment #12. I also provide there the other comments Spivak makes in the speech which clearly state her opposition to suicide bombing. csloat 07:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I found this at the website of boundary 2, which lists Spivak's 2004 piece as Terror: A Speech After 9-11. The speech at Leeds in June 2002, however, is listed here as Class and Culture in Diaspora. From the titles, at least, they appear to be different papers. Even if the 2004 piece is a version of the 2002 speech, it seems quite possible that there were revisions in the intervening two years that would account for the differences csloat has found between Alexander's quotes and the wording in the boundary 2 piece. After all, if the title can change so dramatically, why not the text? I still see no compelling reason to suspect that Alexander was so bold as to fabricate words for an author he was criticizing.

I do not doubt that Spivak has said that she opposes suicide bombing, but that is perfectly consistent with Alexander's thesis that Spivak's use of language--the "opaque pseudojargon of literary postmodernism "--euphemistically gives moral cover to these same acts. His piece gives an interpretation of the consequences of such linguistic constructions as calling suicide bombing an act of "mourning" and "a message inscribed on the body when no other means will get through," or calling victims "designated killees." The statement that the act is a response "to the state terrorism practiced outside of its own ambit by the United States and in the Palestinian case additionally to an absolute failure of hospitality" appears, in Alexander's opinion, to be giving some moral justification for the acts. Given that this is an opinion piece in which Alexander offers his interpretation of the consequences of Spivak's words, and since I still do not see reason to suspect that his quotes of her original speech are inaccurate, I don't see how mentioning his views would constitute a misrepresentation of Spivak's views in the article.

In response to one of csloat's concerns earlier: Alexander's piece was indeed published in the Jerusalem Post. You can find the abstract, which includes much of the text we have been discussing, here. A full version of this article, entitled Evil Educators Defend the Indefensible, was reposted on a conservative website. I have not been able to find a similar abstract for the piece on American Spectator's site, though there is [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939558/posts this repost] of the same article, this time entitled Suicide Bombing 101, at another conservative website. The latter article is said to have been published in the June/July 2003 issue of American Spectator. Here, Alexander cites his own work, and we find that the article, under both titles, is listed as having been published by the Jerusalem Post in January, and the American Spectator in the June/July issue (the latter is dated to 2001, but this appears to be a misprint, as this would have preceded both 9/11 and Spivak's 2002 Leeds speech). Nick Graves 01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Leeds speech title most likely reflects the time that she scheduled the speech, prior to 9/11; it is clear that she did not talk about "Class and Culture in Diaspora" but instead talked about terrorism. And there are enough similarities between Alexander's misquotes and the actual speech that it seems clear we are looking at the same text. However, it is quite possible that she said things (such as "killees," a word that does not appear in the transcript) that were not on the text of the speech, so it is quite possible that Alexander is quoting what he heard that day. However, to conclude that she supports suicide bombing in the face of very clear statements to the contrary seems to be a negligent (if not malicious) selective quotation. And your claim about "pseudojargon" does not really respond to this. How can "pseudojargon" give "moral cover" to acts when in the same breath she morally condemns them? It's clear that Alexander is either stretching the truth or he just doesn't know what he is talking about. And comments about mourning and the "message inscribed on the body" do not in any way appear to give "moral cover" to suicide; they simply seem to be an attempt to understand it. If all that Alexander is doing is trotting out the long-discredited argument that trying to understand why terrorists attack us is tantamount to supporting terrorism, I see no reason why it should be unique to Spivak and not be used, say, against the U.S. State Department, which is also trying to understand these things. csloat 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that Alexander misquoted Spivak. Is the 2004 boundary 2 article really a transcript of her Leeds speech--that is, does it reproduce, word for word, what she actually said in Leeds in June, 2002? Is there a statement to that effect in the publication? Or is it a reworking of what she said? Or is it something else entirely? 9/11 occurred fully nine months before her Leeds speech. That makes your conjecture that she changed her planned speech topic in response to the attacks too late to have the title changed in the program highly implausible. I am not able to access the Spivak paper listed on the 2002 CongressCATH website at Leeds, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a paper entitled "Class and Culture in Diaspora" could have touched on the issue of terrorism. And I must disagree with your assertion that Alexander's (mis?)quotes of Spivak in his op-ed piece are similar enough to the boundary 2 article for us to conclude that we are talking about the same text. The topic is the same, but the language used is quite different--use of the word "designated" in reference to bombing victims is about as close as the similarities get. You say that it is "quite possible that Alexander is quoting what he heard that day." In that case, are you retracting your earlier claim that the quotes of Spivak in his piece are misquotes or fabrications? Nick Graves 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My "conjecture" is not conjecture at all; based on my experience at Universities for the past 2 decades, I don't find it at all "implausible" -- and in fact I find it extremely likely -- that Leeds scheduled the Spivak lecture more than nine months ahead of time. It may be easy to schedule a nobody like me to come lecture without much notice, but to get Spivak to fly around the world to come lecture at your university, you will need quite a bit of lead time. Nine months is nothing on an academic calendar - even the lead time between submitting a paper to a major national or international conference and actually presenting the paper can be nine months. The fact that Spivak clearly did not address the topic you found -- "class culture and diaspora" -- indicates that something like this occurred. It is also possible she simply changed her mind about what to present -- again, it happens all the time. The title may not have been changed on the website but may have been changed on paper documents. Or she may not have bothered to ask to have the title changed at all, but simply presented the work she thought was most relevant at that moment. In fact, I have done this myself, and it is not at all unusual in academia. But if you think all of this is "highly implausible," then what is the alternative? That Spivak actually addressed the topic of "class culture and diaspora" and that Alexander made up the whole suicide bomber thing? Or that she addressed that topic and mentioned suicide bombing as a brief footnote, and Alexander ignored the manifest subject of the speech and went off on the footnote? I don't think you're arguing that either. And, again, Alexander's alleged quotes seem similar enough to me to the quotes from the text published in boundary 2. Again, as I have said a couple of times now, it is entirely possible that Spivak strayed from the text while speaking -- we do this all the time as well, so I would not be surprised if Alexander was quoting what he heard, or thought he heard, that day. I said above (or below, actually; this discussion has gotten way too long) that on closer examination, she has given the speech on a few different occasions, so the boundary 2 text may not be definitive. I originally thought it was a transcript, but it instead appears to be the text she delivered from. But it seems resoundingly clear that this is the text of the address, and whatever differences in presentation exist, the statements against suicide bombing in the speech are quite clear and categorical. So even if Alexander did not fabricate the quote (and if he did, I do acknowledge that he probably did not intend to), he most certainly mischaracterized it in a manner that seems ethically problematic. csloat 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that we're both just guessing here. Neither of us were at Leeds, and Alexander apparently was. It's a pretty grave offense to fabricate quotes, and unless we find compelling reason to think otherwise, we ought to assume that this professor (who, as far as we know, has not earned a reputation for misattributing words to others) accurately reported what he heard before writing his own interpretation of the consequences of what he heard and having it published in two reliable sources. Can we agree that we have insufficient reason to believe that Alexander fabricated these quotes? There are other concerns to address, I know, but I would like to put this one to rest before continuing, if that's possible. Though you clearly disagree with his overall assessment, will you agree at least that the words Alexander quoted are, as far as we can tell, accurate? Nick Graves 04:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in here. It seems we agree that we have no reliable source to indicate that Alexander fabricated anything. I believe csloat's concern is that it may be highly misleading for someone like Alexander to use ellipses to create the illusion of Spivak having pronounced all these bits together as a single paragraph while avoiding any mention of her clearly stated motives for even discussing such things and her express disavowal of terror.

However, I agree with Nick that the quote merely serves as an example of her alleged use of "pseudojargon." It is not specifically offered as proof of Spivak's stance on terror, her political preferences or goals. While Alexander ignores important parts of her intended message, his use of ellipses does not use juxtaposition of her words to fabricate some message that otherwise wasn't there. It's not as simple as csloat's example of eliminating the word "not" from a sentence. Each of these bits seems to stand alone as an example of Alexander's allegation of morally ambiguous language.

You may or may not agree that his criticism has any merit, but it's not our role as editors to be weighing up the merits of such things. We are not supposed to be the judges of Truth and filtering materials in accordance with our beliefs and judgments. Rather, we are supposed to be gathering and fairly representing information relevant to a subject's notability and including views that reflect more than a tiny minority without giving undue weight to them.

Hyperbole has pointed out below that this ultimately comes down to a subjective value judgment. As it stands Hyperbole, Nick and I all seem to think that it does meet this standard. Rbellin and csloat seem to disagree. More input from outside may be helpful, but I insist that our own assessments of the validity of the Alexander claim are original research that just distract from the real debate that we should be having. We don't agree or need to agree on the merits of Alexander's criticism. That sort of personal assessment shouldn't form the backbone of this debate or of wiki editing in general. JrFace 13:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Alexander's article, alone, does not justify a criticism section. However, there is evidence that others have taken note of Spivak's comments on suicide bombing.

For example, Mark Sanders has written a book on Spivak called "Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Live Theory" where he discusses those remarks: an excerpt can be found [22]. Sanders writes: "At every turn, Spivak registers the risk of censure. Her sense of the suicide bomber as 'imaginative actant' is not derived from information gathered through fieldwork. Spivak's construction is speculative, or better still, imaginative. It is, strictly speaking, unverifiable. What matters is not whether it is right or wrong, and that the message has been misunderstood, but that by attributing imagination and the capacity for symbol-formation (inscribing a message) to the enemy, it opens an ethical relationship to him or, increasingly in Palestine, her."

Also, simply Googling 'Spivak "suicide bombing"' makes it amply clear that Alexander's view is not a tiny fringe view. It's misleading to refer to her critics as "a few right-wing blogs" - dozens of bloggers have censured Spivak for her speech. (Google turned up about 212 results for the phrase; having browsed through them, I would estimate that perhaps 100 of them were critical blogs or blog-equivalents). While none of these are reliable sources, it does indicate that Alexander is hardly alone in his view.

I would be in favor of a short criticism section that mentions her controversial statements about suicide bombing. --Hyperbole 07:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with citing Spivak on this issue; I have a problem citing Alexander, who takes her words out of context and puts words in her mouth that are inaccurate. I also have no problem citing Mark Sanders, who appears to take into account what she actually said, and who never (at least in the pages available on google) accuses her of supporting suicide bombing (and who in fact grounds her analysis of suicide in her earlier and more indisputably influential work on her work on the subaltern). As for the blogs, again, it is a giant echo chamber -- 10 or 100 blogs do not a WP:RS make, especially when they are all recycling the same nonsense that they read on the free republic. How many of the blogs you read are actually coming to the same conclusion Alexander did? Again, I think if we cite any of this, we have to cite the portions where she clearly condemns suicide bombing, rather than just the portions that are difficult to understand but can be twisted to say that she somehow supports it. Finally, if we are going to make a big deal out of this speech on this page (and following some google links, it appears she made the speech on a few different occasions, so perhaps the boundary 2 transcript is not definitive), we need to make a much bigger deal about her published works that have been far more influential, particularly the subaltern essay. csloat 07:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, on closer reading, I believe you misinterpret Sanders' comments. I don't think he means what you mean by "Spivak registers the risk of censure." I cannot be sure without looking at the footnote that comes at the end of that sentence; I will order the book and check it out. But based on reading the rest of that section more closely, he does not appear at all to be censuring Spivak, nor to be claiming that anyone else has censured her. csloat 07:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this RfC was meant to be very issue specific: whether the wording of the BLP criticism guidelines necessitates the exclusion of reference to hostile op-ed's such as Alexander's. The debate seems to have gone pretty far afield of that and merged back into the broader debate as to whether it is a good idea to include reference to Alexander's criticism on the Spivak page.

Does that mean that we all acknowledge, as Nick suggested, that the BLP guidelines, in and of themselves, don't offer a clear standard in this case? If so, I think we should change the subject matter at issue mentioned in the RfC. If not, I would, perhaps, like to repost the original RfC to avoid extraneous arguments and encourage outsider input on this specific issue. JrFace 11:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to answer your specific question in a vacuum, because in my view the only passage in BLP that would necessitate the exclusion of Alexander is "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." (I reject the idea that Alexander's op-ed is "malicious content": it appears to be a legitimate, if hostile, response). Thus, a more general examination is necessary: Alexander can be mentioned - briefly - if his concern is part of an adequately large minority. So I had to do that examination - and now it is my opinion that the minority is adequately large to mention. A hundred blogs may indeed be little more than an "echo chamber," but an adequately large echo chamber is still an indication of notability. So then the question is "how large is 'adequately large'"? And of course there's no bright-line test for that: it's subjective. --Hyperbole 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not mean to say that his op-ed was malicious, only that a court would be likely to find "actual malice" in legal terms were Spivak ever to sue. More importantly, a finding of actual malice would not be necessary in a US court -- even a finding of gross negligence or negligence would lead to damages. Damages are even more likely in a British court. And this discussion on Wikipedia talk, wherein it is acknowledged that we know Alexander to be stretching the truth, would be evidence for such a finding should she choose to sue Wikipedia. Now, I doubt that she would, but that is certainly not the point at all of WP:BLP -- we should avoid actionable defamation because it is the right thing to do, not just because we think that some authors are more likely to sue than others. And I don't agree that a hundred blogs makes something "notable," especially when all of those blogs appear to be repeating the same thing that the writers read elsewhere. How many of those bloggers actually read the Spivak speech and reached their own conclusions? Perhaps Alexander's rantings are notable on the Alexander page but I still don't see any persuasive argument for including them here, and I see severe WP:BLP problems. csloat 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple responses. First, if the article read "Spivak supports suicide bombings" and cited Alexander as a source, *that* might qualify as actionable defamation. If the article read something like "Critics such as Alexander have accused Spivak of supporting suicide bombing, despite the fact that she has clearly stated that she does not", that is in no way defamatory or libelous and clearly within the scope of WP:BLP: it's an undeniably true statement that does not give undue weight to the criticism.

Second, originality of thought is simply not a factor for determining the notability of an idea. There's nothing original about chanting "No Blood for Oil" at a protest (you might even call political protests the ultimate "echo chamber") but the phrase is notable enough that Wikipedia does mention it. It's certainly not interpreted as the opinion of one person that's been parroted by a bunch of people, and therefore a minor fringe view. As to whether about a hundred blogs constitute a "significant minority," that's very subjective. Obviously, a hundred blogs claiming that George W. Bush has a secret agenda to annex Mexico would be a tiny fringe view unworthy for inclusion. But hundreds of millions of people are familiar with Bush: how many people are familiar with Spivak? (Tens of thousands? Maybe?) Obviously, a hundred criticisms weigh far more heavily in her case. --Hyperbole 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing alexander without indicating that she has clearly stated the opposite of what he accuses her of would be defamatory, and that is what we have been discussing per JrFaces recommendation. I agree there might be a nondefamatory way of stating it while showing that he is wrong, in which case notability becomes the main issue here. "No Blood for Oil" is a terrible comparison since the phrase is notable via numerous and repeated instances in the mainstream media and other WP:RS's. Meanwhile, Alexander's namecalling has at best been repeated by a few bloggers who have not actually read Spivak -- claiming "a hundred criticisms" based on this is ludicrous, if I may say so. In any case, I think I've stated my case pretty clearly -- we have a non-notable critic of spivak, Mr. Alexander, making defamatory statements based on what appears to be a made-up quotation, and we have evidence that those statements are exactly contrary to what Spivak actually said. I think there are severe BLP and notability concerns with including these comments. I really don't see the point of arguing this ad nauseam; if you really think this is important (and I wonder why anyone who has not bothered to even read Spivak in the first place would find it so important to quote defamations of her in an encyclopedia -- I don't know whether you have read her but JrFace has made clear he has not and does not intend to), go ahead and add it in a way you think is consistent with BLP and NPOV; if it truly is, it will probably stay in the article. csloat 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making false statements about me. I have written only that I haven't read this one speech because I don't have access to it, and have encouraged you to forward it to me. Don't try to defame me, and I'll keep trying to assume good faith with you. JrFace 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I missed you asking for that, and I apologize. I was basing that comment on your initial claim that you thought it was a "wild goose chase" to go to the library to look it up or to spend $14 to purchase it from the publisher. I would be happy to forward it to your email but I can't reprint the whole thing for copyright concerns. (By the way, I most certainly have not "defamed" you with that statement, even if it was incorrect). My point still stands, however, I still don't understand why someone who has not even read Spivak's work would be so interested in quoting this sort of stuff (whether you consider it defamation or not) in an encyclopedia. csloat 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why my motives and experience are relevant to this discussion, but, if it will help create good faith, here goes. It's true that I haven't read much Spivak, but I have read a fair amount of postcolonial and multicultural theory. Last year I discovered this page while doing a couple of projects on multiculturalism that focused on Charles Taylor, K.A. Appiah, Bhikhu Parekh, and Tariq Modood. I also participated in a seminar where Spivak's work was a sort of reference point, despite it not being a prominent part of the reading list.

I take seriously Foucault's concept of discourse as power, and the reaction of others such as Amy Gutmann that have pointed out intellectual pitfalls related to this sort of approach to academia. I think language is important in ways that we tend not to be aware of, and has effects beyond our intended meanings. I don't believe that Spivak consciously supports terrorism, but I do believe that certain language may be morally leading in ways that were probably not intended. Her words describing suicide bombing as "a message inscribed on the body when no other means will get through," for instance, can be understood in different ways. It's poetic sounding, and I think this sort of poetic language-resonance can serve to blur what might otherwise be clear moral boundaries. Do I think Spivak intends such blurring? No. Do I think Alexander argues through overly aggressive inuendo? Yes. However, I still think there is an important point underlying his somewhat disagreeable writing style: sometimes words hide what might otherwise be obvious. That's part of the George Orwell and Lionel Trilling references of his that I've mentioned.

Spivak uses new language to open her readers up to new readings of the world around them. However, every new reading and new way of looking at the world will have its hidden effects. Spivak hopes to bring an end to terror by understanding the terrorists, a noble goal. However, the more we understand something, the more we tend to identify with it, and this may tend to complicate moral questions that we had hoped to resolve. I'm sure when you look at Alexander's article all you see is lies, hate and bile, which is reasonable. However, to me it is an invitation to think about these sorts of issues.

As for my persistence on this page, you're right to think that it's odd, and completely unreasonable. I make no claim to live reasonably, even as I try to offer reasonable discourse and demand the same from my fellow editors. This talk page, however, has developed a life of its own which I never intended and wouldn't have chosen. It's become a sort of thorn in my side; not the idea of including Alexander's criticism, but that of not being able to come to some reasonable conclusion or common ground with other obviously reasonable people. JrFace 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct that your motives are not relevant to the discussion; they just made me wonder, so I asked. And, as it is, yes, your response does help in terms of good faith. I don't agree with you, but at least I know where you are coming from. I don't agree with you at all that the phrase "a message inscribed on the body when no other means will get through" has anything to do with blurring moral boundaries. I also think it is a bit naive to imagine that moral boundaries are clean and neat before Spivak came along with her self-important-sounding prose. When your whole family has been killed by Israeli bombs marked "Made in America" and you have been indoctrinated with Hamas propaganda, where are the clear moral boundaries? When your whole family has been killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber and you have been indoctrinated with Israeli propaganda, where are the clear moral boundaries? I think her statement -- especially having been influenced by her analysis of the Indian sati practice and of the 1926 suicide of Bhubaneswari Bhaduri -- is actually quite enlightening. I think an important part of her whole point is that there are no easy moral lines to draw in many cases but that we still must act as moral beings, and thus she can say such things that try to account for (not justify) suicide bombing while at the same time vocally condemning the practice. Alexander's reading is problematic in that he reads something she did not say into something more complicated that she may have said while ignoring what she actually and quite clearly said. I think Spivak would be the first to agree with you that "sometimes words hide what might otherwise be obvious" -- in fact, in "Can the Subaltern Speak?" she spends quite a bit of effort breaking discourse into what it says, what it does not say, what it hides, and what it cannot say. But Alexander is not performing that sort of complex analysis on her words. He is instead imposing on what she said something that he apparently would have liked her to say. He apparently did the same thing to the editors of Critical Inquiry, with essentially the same argument. While Spivak does investigate discourse to see what the text hides or does not say, she does not do this by ignoring what it actually does say.

You state, "the more we understand something, the more we tend to identify with it, and this may tend to complicate moral questions that we had hoped to resolve." Do you suggest that the solution is to not try to understand something? To ignore moral complexities and reach for the easy, black vs. white Manichaean solution? If so, then the Bush Administration discourse of "fighting evildoers" should be very comforting to you -- just as the bin Laden discourse of "fighting infidels" is very comforting for people who strap bombs to their bodies and walk into mosques, bus terminals, etc. But if one's goal is to avoid moral complexity by avoiding understanding, why would one be interested in scholarship, in encyclopedias, or in other projects devoted to understanding? Perhaps complicating the moral questions we had hoped to resolve is a sign of intellectual maturation, rather than the sign of moral decrepitude that Alexander seems to think it is.

Like you, I never thought this silly op-ed piece would generate so much verbiage. csloat 05:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no answers to these questions. Everyone forges their own pathways of understanding and must address these issue for themselves, making real choices in life. My point is just that even our best intentions have consequences that are often beyond what we hope or intend.

One way to look at the Alexander criticism is to see that even honest attempts to bring terrorism to its end will inevitably be attacked by others as a cause or promotion of terrorism and an insult to its victims. I live in Spain where this particular political battle of words and images is never-ending. It's often pure demagogy, but, as Hyperbole noted, even pure echoes often come to form an important part of the human experience.

Morality is tricky business. Is Spivak evil? I don't think so, but her language is intended to reach out past existing boundaries into new territory; and I think it's a predictable aspect of human nature that such redrawing of lines, limits and expectations will be characterized by some as evil.

Am I evil? I mentioned before that my goal on this page has always been meaningful discourse, but, despite this, I have at times apparently come across as a narrow-minded, hateful son of a bitch. What is the true me: my intentions or others' perceptions of me? I think it's both, and if there were a wiki page on me as a wiki editor I'd expect to see criticisms such as "some believe that JrFace is a politically-motivated troll given to incivility." That's not how I see myself, but it's true that I have been seen that way, and I think it would deserve mention. JrFace 12:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that when someone tries to understand the complexities of human behavior, that some people will wrongly characterize them as "evil," but that does not mean that the wrong characterization should be part of an encyclopedia article. In this case I think it's pretty clear that it should not. But if, after all this discussion, you, or one of the others who have joined the discussion, think it does belong here, and you can construct a sentence or two about the Alexander criticism that is consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, please do so and we can discuss it. The sentences you created earlier did not meet these terms (and they were also misrepresenting other authors than Alexander), but if there is a better way to state this alongside the passages where Spivak makes clear her opposition to suicide bombing, then perhaps it will stay in the article. I personally still don't see anything notable about Alexander's comments, but you and others appear to. csloat 00:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would favor an accurate summary of what Alexander says in his piece, in one sentence. A second sentence should state that Spivak has said she does not support terrorism/suicide bombing. Perhaps a third could point out that the quotes in Alexander's critique do not appear in the version of the paper published in boundary 2. Would this satisfy WP:BLP and WP:NPOV? Nick Graves 04:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It all depends what the sentences say, of course. I still don't see how this adds anything of value to the article, given that everyone seems to agree that Alexander has at best completely misinterpreted Spivak, and that the evidence he is dead wrong is right there in the speech he quotes from. But go ahead and give a shot at it and we can discuss. csloat 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that he "completely misinterpret[s] Spivak." Words, especially poetic words, have no single, transcendental meaning. I have tried to make that clear, but apparently my message has been (completely?) misinterpreted. Words, like selves, have no one true essence that everyone will ever agree on. Apart from Spivak's poetic imagery, even words like "moral justification" or "support" (which Alexander does not use) have no clear, concrete meaning. That's why it's off the mark to suppose that there is evidence that Alexander is "dead wrong." These aren't simple true/false issues that can be proven or disproven. I've already mentioned-- and I believe Nick touched on this, too-- that Alexander's argument is that Spivak uses "pseudojargon," which may blur moral distinctions. I don't believe that such an interpretation can be demonstrated to be either true or false. Our opinions on the matter are not demonstrations. It is reasonable for you to think that Alexander is just talking trash, but it's also reasonable to think that there is some substance to his arguments...as I have already taken pains to illustrate.

Wiki editors don't have to reach common beliefs on these sorts of questions. I have at no point--as far as I can recall-- preached for any particular understanding of the substance of Alexander's criticism; whereas, it seems to me, that csloat has constantly been doing just that. I can and do respect his beliefs relating to Spivak's work and Alexander's (mis)representation of her message. I just ask that he respect others' interpretations without trying to convert or convince us of some ultimate Truth of the matter. Reasonable people can, do, and always will have contrasting opinions and beliefs about such things. But again, and as I've mentioned above, editing shouldn't come down to our substantive beliefs about such matters. It should be based on our more procedural (albeit still subjective) notions of how to consistently and fairly apply BLP guidelines.

As for the proposed addition to the article, I am going to try my hand at it based on what I have already proposed and some of the points raised in this discussion. I have tried to respond to what I consider to be the valid points raised by csloat. However, I am not convinced by all of his complaints. I've pointed out before that this leaves us at a 1-1 deadlock. Hopefully, other editors will weigh in to help resolve any pending questions. JrFace 13:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) First, you are right that words have "no single, transcendental meaning," but that does not mean they can mean any old thing, and it certainly does not mean that you can interpret them to mean the opposite of what they manifestly say. If you agree that Spivak clearly denounces suicide bombing, then you have to agree that Alexander misinterprets her. There is no one right interpretation of a sentence but there can be multiple wrong interpretations. But it does not matter - we will not agree on this, and I have agreed to work with you on the right way to state Alexander's misinterpretation. The comment that "pseudojargon" (what is that anyway? how does it differ from "real" jargon?) "blurs moral distinctions" is rather short-sighted when dealing with situations where moral distinctions are already quite blurry, as I pointed out above. It is ridiculous to assume that moral distinctions were clear-cut before Spivak got there with her postcolonial pen. But anyway, we don't have to agree on this - you have proposed a few sentences to cover the issue and I have made changes to them without, I think, changing the substance of what you want in the article. Hopefully my changes will be acceptable to you too and we can move on; I'm not interested in revisiting our edit war on this matter. csloat 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your new approach to collaborating on the article instead of deleting all of my contributions. However, I think the material you've added is problematic both stylistically and in terms of undue weight. Our purpose here is neither to defend nor attack Spivak. I think my version does a good job of raising issues without blowing them out of proportion. You yourself have mentioned that there's no reason to name names such as Eagleton's. Like it or not, his article does complain about Spivak's style, and that's the only reason it's being cited. There's no need to add the quote that you've added. I also find it clunky. In particular it makes the transition to the next paragraph quite awkward.

The quote that you've added after the Alexander cite also, in my opinion, reads horribly. The goal here isn't to drown out Alexander's criticism. Spivak's a big enough academic figure that she doesn't need protectionism from the editors of this page.

Fellow editors: what do you think? Please compare the version that I have written, with csloat's version which I am temporarily going to leave in place, although I find it unacceptable.

Csloat: you mention that you are not interested in revisiting an edit war on this matter, yet you have made a considerable effort to have the last word on how the article should read. That's perfectly cool, however, I think this is a good example of how words communicate more than what is explicitly expressed. Your edits are an indication that you do not intend to follow the recommendations that have been raised by your fellow editors, and even by you, in the course of this discussion. What does it mean to want to end an edit war while making this sort of effort? Reasonable minds are likely to come to different interpretations of what your words mean in this context. JrFace 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First, there is a reason to mention Eagleton if you are going to lump him into people critical of Spivak when it is clear he has a very different position than you represent him as having. Yes he complains about her language but he also praises the substance of her work; to lump him in with critics who say she values style over substance or who find her impenetrable is extremely misleading.

Second, if you find the material "clunky" or "horrible," see what you can do with the language to make it read better without deleting the material.

Third, what do you really find "unacceptable" about the version I've contributed to? If the language is clunky - I'm not sure you've shown how it is - I think that can easily be fixed. It is not as if I have introduced BLP violations, for example.

Fourth, you say that my edits are "are an indication that you do not intend to follow the recommendations that have been raised by your fellow editors, and even by you, in the course of this discussion." What are you talking about? My edits are an attempt to move forward with compromise. You have put material in the article that I consider unnecessary and potentially in conflict with Wikipedia rules, and I have argued vociferously why it should not be here. Nevertheless, I am conceding that you believe it should be here, so I am suggesting ways to leave the material in here while still addressing the important concerns I have. I do not believe I have created any additional problems in the article and, indeed, I believe the version I contributed to addresses the issues you have raised as well as those raised by others in the discussion. I actually thought this would have been acceptable to everyone; I see that you do not consider it acceptable, but I do not see that you have presented a clear reason why, other than to speculate about what my intentions are. csloat 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is my argument against it. Your contributions hurt the article's clarity and dilute it. What are your motives for making the aritcle so obviously awkward? I can only interpret your editing as an overwhelmingly POV attempt at some sort of academic protectionism.

Rbellin: you who argued against giving too much weight to this speech, do you not agree with me? Following your--and csloat's-- previously stated undue weight complaints, I don't think you can plausibly argue for the new csloat edit without revealing that undue weight has never truly been the operative concern here all along.

Note that my proposal follows quite closely the recommendations made by Nick Graves. Csloat's version follows his own continued attempt to wield the last word. He seems to take that "Commodore" business quite seriously. I have aspired to more than a battle of egos and ideologies on this page, and looking at the totality of the circumstances and your behaviour, csloat, I don't believe you have made an honest attempt to do the same.

I'm tired of all this too, but I'm not going to give in to, or be persuaded by, arguments through repetition and blatant POV pushing. Nor am I going to look kindly upon claims of being tired of this editing war, while it becomes increasingly clear who is the chief editing warmonger around here, who refuses to get the points raised by others, and who refuses to put them into practice. I, personally, have a hard time interpreting csloat's words and efforts as compromise or a plea for peace. Again, csloat seems to me to be the perfect illustration of why his own literalistic arguments against Alexander's criticism are simplistic and false: stated goals may sometimes serve to mask what would otherwise be seen as obvious.

Here's a test for your good faith, csloat. I've accepted your deletions of my contributions to this article for quite a while. So now, I'm going to undo your edits because my own contributions, as far as I can tell, better reflect the concerns raised in the course of this whole debate. As far as can tell, your edits reflect nothing more than your own personal preferences, even though at this point you should be aware that each word here is significant to several of us. I think we can leave the page with my version until we come to some common decision. If everybody likes your version I will make no attempt to change things, and certainly not to promote some POV. Will you make the same promise? JrFace 22:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) Please don't edit war. I have made good faith changes to the article to reflect the desires of both sides of this debate, and you deleted them. I have restored them. Please do not delete them again. If you think there is something wrong with my changes, please indicate exactly what and we can discuss one by one. Please do not provide ultimatums and claim that you are testing my faith here. That is highly uncivil, I think.

(2) How is there an undue weight argument to be made at all? This is a biography of an academic. Quoting from that academic in context, or insisting that quotes from other academics be in context, does not change the weight of anything.

(3) "Academic protectionism" is nonsense. You had quotes out of context and summaries of the quotes that did not accurately reflect what was in the articles linked. I fixed these problems.

(4) There is no need for personal attacks against me. I'd ask you to avoid them in the future.

(5) You call me a chief edit warrior, but you are the one reverting my good faith changes without discussion. I have explained every change I made meticulously in the edit summaries and the discussion above; you have reverted them all with a vague claim of POV pushing and academic protectionism. Which change of mine did you not like and what is your response to the argument I made for that particular change?

(6) I do not accept your ultimatum. I made very careful changes to the text that you proposed in order to address my concerns while at the same time being respectful of the positions of others articulated in this debate including you. csloat 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment

"There is no indication that this criticism has been taken seriously in academic journals."

Acceptance and commentary by academic journals are absolutely irrelevant. While academic journals are ranked above op-ed pieces in terms of reliability, op-ed pieces still generally qualify as reliable sources as long as it is published in reputable source.

"Thus, the question is whether double publication of this op-ed in two generally reputable publications is alone enough to meet BLP criticism criteria"

The fact that it is syndicated or otherwise published in two or more publications does not make it count as more than one source. It does, however, add to the article's level of reliability by itself; it indicates that multiple reputable publications consider it reliable, hence adding to its individual reliability.

One reliable source alone is usually not enough to justify a certain criticism, unless it is published by an expert who is notable (famous for) the area of criticism. Generally speaking, you want two or more. So if another, independent reliable source is found, the criticism should be included.

The other alleged criticism from Eagleton doesn't appear to be a notable criticism because, as previously specified, it is just a tiny part of a writing that is mostly positive. However, if other similar criticism is found, it should be included. I just noticed a criticism from Alder, but didn't look it over, so I can't comment on their similarity.

I also commented on the talk page of WP:BLP to clarify the language of it. I read through a lot of the talk, but there is a lot that I missed. Please tell me if there is something that I missed concerning this issue.

-Nathan J. Yoder 06:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Eric Adler article

I'm not sure what to do with these thoughts, but I'd like to comment on the discussion about Spivak's alleged opacity of languate. I think the Adler blog (it's here and is cited in the article) is very interesting in this light as it is based entirely on two sentences -- one from Commentary that Adler finds completely "lucid," and another from Critique of Postcolonial Reason that he finds "torturously opaque." Perhaps he is claiming that she is only sometimes "opaque"? He seems to think that she is only lucid when she wants people to understand what she is saying, but then what is it he thinks she wants when she is not being lucid? Is it possible that she uses more complex language when she has something more complicated to say? After all, I can look through the Critique of Postcolonial reason and find simple sentences there too; it is several hundred pages long, and it is a bit unfair to characterize her prose based on one sentence that was chosen precisely for its opacity.

Don't get me wrong, I realize a lot of people find her difficult to understand, but a lot of other people find that difficulty rewarding not because it is self-important but rather because it allows for more complex levels of analysis. I don't find the sentence he quoted from the Critique all that "opaque" at all, in fact. It is extremely precise and clear. It is complex, certainly, and it requires some thinking to understand what she is saying, but I don't think she is being intentionally obtuse or obfuscating. I mean, really, which word doesn't Adler understand? Obviously, some of the meaning is dependent on context (e.g. it helps to know what she means by "my sentence," or to know who Marx is, or to know what mercantilism is), but she is not using words or ideas, at least in this sentence, that are all that difficult to understand.

Like I said, I'm not sure what to do with this thought; I'm not advocating a particular change in the article based on this, and I don't think it is unfair to say that some people complain about her use of language, but the more I look at this whole debate about Spivak's alleged "opacity," the more I find it to be much ado about nothing. csloat 19:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting issues, that I'd be glad to discuss with you. However, I don't think they are appropriate debates to elaborate on here on this talk page. Here is a brief reaction to your thoughts: That's great if you think her writing is crystal clear. I myself find Dostoyevsky's writing very clear and was surprised the first time others complained to me that it was too dense for them. However, despite this experience of clarity, I imagine that if you got together with a group of Spivak fans, or even with Spivak herself, and tried to elaborate on the specific meanings and implications of particular passages, words, and concepts you would see that even among the like-minded there are considerable differences of interpretation on just about everything. I, for one, consider that to be an inherent part of the human experience and the nature of language. O.W. Holmes has defined words as "the skin of a living thought." You can read others' words but never fully climb into others' minds and nervous-systems to experience the living thoughts that are the lifeforce behind the words. Language almost always involves a lot of guesswork and approximation.

That said, in our role here as editors we really shouldn't be focusing on our own experiences and interpretations of such things. The point that we should be concerned with here is just that some commentators in the public sphere have complained that her writing is obtuse, etc. We are trying to report these things as facts even if we completely disagree with them. Some people obviously do think that way, and I think it's simplistic to suppose that they are either right or wrong. It's simply one reaction that Spivak's work has produced in different people, respected academics included. To me that means its an important aspect of Spivak's work, even if greater minds think that it is all nonsense and a sign of intellectual inability. JrFace 22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course there will be differences in opinion about interpretation of Spivak, as there will for any other difficult writer. But that does not mean she is opaque. It means she is no different than any other writer. I ask of you, as I asked of Mr. Adler - which word of hers don't you understand? You don't have to answer this; I agree with you it has little bearing on the article at this point. But I do think it's an interesting phenomenon. csloat 23:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A response to Csloat's legal claims

Csloat: I hope you are not offended by my addition of this section. I just can't let your lengthy and faulty legal reasoning go uncontested on this page. Consider it advice, which I hope you will find constructive. Who am I to give this advice? I am admitedly NOT an authority on torts law. However, I have gone to law school, passed a bar exam, and am currently teaching an introduction to the common law at a university. All that still doesn't mean I know all that much about the law, but it does make me feel morally responsible to clear up the confusion your arguments rest upon. Law is a dynamic process that your confident overstatements horribly distort through an act of imagination apparently not grounded in any sort of legal experience.

Don't pretend to be a lawyer. You are not a lawyer. How do I know this? Because you seem completely oblivious to the sources of law relating to defamation. Libel laws are actually defined by state statutes and/or the common law, so the fact that you talk about what "U.S. court[s]...would" do shows that you do not know enough about law to be lecturing us: there is no uniform national legal standard as to what constitutes actionable libel. The case law you seem to have looked at refers only to the constitutional limits on state libel laws under the First Amendment, and not to what states would do.

That said, Spivak couldn't successfully sue Alexander in any jurisdiction. This is because Alexander does not make any sort of factual allegation that can be proven false. Amongst ourselves, we have had different interpretations of what "moral justification" of terrorism means, and if you look at his actual wording, he doesn't even directly accuse her of this. It may be wormy and nitpicky, but that's the law, and why your arguments fail: you might find his arguments absurd but they are not the sort of arguments that can be demonstrated to be either true or false. Thus they are not the sort of declarations that can generally be considered libelous.

However, this case would also have to be seen in light of the great deference that courts have given, in recent decades, to speech bearing some sort of political message. It would be difficult, I think, for there to be a state statute criminalizing speech such as Alexander's that the Supreme Court wouldn't find unconstitutional. Alexander expresses an opinion, and opinion has been given quite broad protection under the First Amendment. Courts have set some limits on opinions where they rest on some specific false allegation (see Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. and the allegation of perjury), but such specificity is lacking in Alexander's case.

As for your affirmation that Alexander fabricated words (i.e. literally put words into Spivak's mouth) that claim has never been verified. However it is verifiable. The claim that you have made can be proven true or false. If it turns out to be false, and if a wiki talk page is considered by a court to be publication of speech (after all it is speech made available world-wide so I don't think it's clear what a court would do) Alexander would very likely have a libel claim against you. I touched upon this in earlier arguments, but perhaps I didn't connect the dots clearly enough.

The legal case that you cited, Masson, refers to actual fabrication of prejudicial language in a published interview. At most, Alexander seems to have manipulated through his use of ellipses, not fabricated. Misleading? Sure. Actionable libel? Most likely not. The Court in Masson looked not just at whether words were manipulated, but whether there was a material change in the the meaning of what was said. They found that such material alterations of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. One would still need to look at state statutes to know what the applicable law is, however. But particulars aside, as I've mentioned elsewhere, Alexander's block-quote is nothing like your example of eliminating the word "not" from a sentence. In general he offers fragments that are independently meaningful. His sticking them together with ellipses is, perhaps, misleading, but not materially misleading: the fragments all seem to make sense independently of each other and while he concentrates them together, there is no added message that depends on the juxtaposition. You really need to look at all these details, and the factual differences that a court is likely to find important before even presuming to be engaging in analogical legal reasoning, let alone predict a particular case with any sort of confidence.

But let's put all your legal arguments in context: in a common law system, the law is not what wiki editors who have read a couple of articles think it is. The law is determined on a case by case basis by judges. Lawyers are paid to predict what judges in a given court will do in a given case; wiki editors (qua editors) aren't. If Ms. Spivak were to choose to pursue legal action against Mr. Alexander, the law would then be decided; however there are two important points to keep in mind 1.) The fact that Ms. Spivak apparently hasn't pursued such legal action is telling as to the legal merits of any potential claim she may have; we shouldn't presume to know more than Spivak's lawyer who apparently didn't see fit to pursue the claim that csloat feels so confident could be made; and 2) If Alexander's criticism were found to be libel and she were awarded damages, etc., we at wikipedia would have not only the right, but the duty to report and describe what he wrote. One doesn't become a tortfeasor by reporting that others have made certain criticisms, libelous or not. No one here has even thought of presenting Alexander's claim as the truth, but only as an argument that has been made in the public sphere. No one has ever, in the course of this dispute, promoted the inclusion of Alexander's ideas as if they were facts or truth. It has only been suggested that his criticism should be mentioned and reported objectively, and there is absolutely nothing libelous about that.

This is an important point because csloat's arguments have effectively attempted to create a chilling effect on speech on this page by raising vague specters of legal responsibility. I sincerely hope that no one is misled by this sort of posturing and overreaching that could be best characterized as legal superstition. The marketplace of ideas is serious business for every wikipedian, and legal fearmongering is a real threat to that which is the lifeblood of this common project of ours. It's a dangerous approach and one I hope you, csloat, are big enough, and wise enough, to renounce absolutely. JrFace 23:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My arguments in the legal realm are based on my understanding of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the matter. That is, the common law. Yes, you're right that state statutes differ from each other, but I hope you'll agree with me that the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest authority on these matters? I have cited the relevant case law above. And the problem is not just that Spivak could sue Alexander and we could report it here, but that if we knowingly repeat false claims here equating Spivak with support for terrorists (arguably libel per se), then Wikipedia is partially responsible for any harm to her reputation. More importantly, however, I also pointed out above that WP:BLP requires that we avoid defaming the subjects of biographies not because they might sue but because it is the right thing to do -- so your points really aren't relevant. Your accusation that I am proposing a "chilling effect" on speech is not accurate at all -- I have not in any way threatened anyone or suggested that anyone here avoid saying whatever they want on the talk pages, other than to ask you to stop insulting me. The escalating length of this discussion suggests that nobody has been chilled. Suggesting that certain items are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles is not censorship; otherwise we would have to allow anything and everything anyone wants to say on any Wikipedia article no matter how inappropriate or irrelevant. I'm sure that's not the claim you wish to defend. csloat 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You really just don't understand things, and don't understand that you don't understand things. There's no sense in trying to clarify things with someone who either refuses to get the point or is incapable of doing so.

That said, your reckless rampage of absurdity really must come to an end. I hope other editors feel the same way, and that something can be done about this situation. JrFace 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I tried to respond to your argument and you accuse me of bad faith and absurdity. I'd like to ask you again to stop with the accusations.

Let me add a few things to the discussion above: (1) I think Masson is actually quite relevant here, since that is almost exactly what is at issue -- not just misleading quotation but misleading quotation that appears to be intentional, or at least negligent (there are three levels of fault in US defamation law; actual malice, gross negligence, and negligence. your claim that Alexander was manipulative with his use of ellipses but not outright fabricating may be the case -- though the evidence suggests he may have fabricated altogether, we still do not know, but I'm willing to give you that -- suggests only that we are dealing with gross negligence or negligence rather than actual malice, both of which are actionable). (2) Lorain Journal is also quite relevant here as Alexander's opinion is based on a statement of fact (he claims Spivak gives support to terrorism through her speech even though she obviously does quite the opposite) about a specific and false allegation. (3) American law actually leans heavily towards free speech in defamation; if Spivak really wanted to collect damages from Alexander or from Wikipedia, she would probably take her case to a British court, where a case would be a lot easier to win. Finally (4) Spivak probably would not sue Alexander or Wikipedia - I have stipulated that from the outset. Such a lawsuit is highly unlikely even if his statements were far more egregious. The only reason to mention it here is to underline the WP:BLP concerns at issue. I certainly never meant this discussion as any kind of definitive statement about what would actually happen in a court of law here or anywhere else. The fact is, none of us can predict what a particular lawyer will say or how a particular judge or jury would respond to such claims. So this is all extremely hypothetical and need not be belabored any further. csloat 23:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with JrFace. He responded has he did because your initial response didn't really address much, if any, of what he said. Furthermore, your general comments on the legality of this have been rather a-matter-of-factly while interpreting subjective criteria with comparatively limited knowledge and while ignore several factors. JrFace was suggesting that you were creating a 'chilling effect' for the article page, to prevent things from being added to the article page based on paranoid legal analysis. Something you seem to have missed is that you need to prove significant financial damage to establish defamation. While I don't think you were acting in bad faith, it certainly is rude to try to bolster a view on what is ultimately not the main issue. You only cited one SCOTUS case and there are many more on the books, both at the state and the federal level. You should take heed when an actual lawyer, who has read more than a few summaries, has made the effort to outline so much. It is necessary to read through much case law (not just summaries) to understand the precise difference between things such as negligence and actual malice.

(1) You seem to acknowledge the ambiguity here. Even the assertion of modifying a quotation is speculation at this point. Remember, Spivak is a public figure, not a private individual. This means that negligence doesn't meet the criteria for this case.

(2) Can you please establish which specific quotes you're referring to?

(3) Wikimedia, the foundation that runs Wikipedia, can't be sued in the U.K. because it exists in the U.S.

(4) They wouldn't sue Wikimedia because it is not defamation to quote someone else (Alexander) who is defaming a third party (Spivak). Even if Spivak committed libel, Wikimedia could only be held liable if and only if Wikipedia presented Alexander's view as true, rather than simply quoting and attributing it to Alexander. The Wikipedia policy in question only concerns statements which are in themselves defamatory; a quotation of a defamatory statement that someone else made is not in itself defamatory.

(5) A single op-ed piece like this is incredibly unlikely to cause significant financial damage, thereby invalidating such a lawsuit. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my initial response was meant to point out that his extended comment was mostly inapplicable to the point at issue here. You appear to be making the same mistake. My point is that it doesn't matter whether Spivak could or would sue; the point is we should avoid defamation because it is the right thing to do. To repeat myself - I do not think it at all likely that she would sue, and I am sorry I gave that impression to anyone.

However, I believe you are also wrong about some of the other issues. You say I only cited one SCOTUS case and there are more on the books -- please indicate which case you are referring to that is specifically relevant here. (I actually cited two, though JrFace brought up the second one). You claim that someone needs to prove financial damage to establish defamation; that is false. The four elements of defamation are the defamatory statement, its communication to a third party (or publication), identification of the party defamed, and fault. Financial harms may be necessary to make a case worth the effort to pursue (since they can result in damages), but they are not required to find defamation. You said I should take heed when "an actual lawyer ... has made an effort to outline so much," but if the "actual lawyer" you are referring to is JrFace, I'm not sure what he has outlined that I have ignored or been unclear about. You say that will help me understand the precise difference between negligence and actual malice, but in fact JrFace did not address that question at all. That was me who did that. You imply throughout that I have no knowledge or understanding of legal issues but I'm not sure what gives you that impression.

You then make 5 arguments: (1) you say I acknowledge the ambiguity. I do. As I noted earlier on in the discussion, it was only about halfway through the discussion that I understood that the boundary 2 piece may not have been a definitive transcript. However, it is the only evidence that we have of what Spivak actually said, and it is violently at odds with what Alexander claims she said. However, I have backed off of the claim that he intentionally misquoted her; the problem is he still took her completely out of context. You then state that she is a public figure, but that is something that could be disputed. I am not saying you are wrong - I would probably agree with you were she to file such a lawsuit. But again, that is not the point of WP:BLP. (2) you ask for the quotes. I don't have them nor do I care to look for them; if you are interested enough to post arguments here, you probably can read the foregoing discussion and look through the article edits to find them. But the summary is that alexander accuses Spivak of being supportive of suicide bombing through her language. (3) You say Wikimedia can't be sued in the UK because it exists in the US. That is incorrect, and Wikimedia's lawyers will tell you as much. (4) You say it is not defamation to publish defamatory comments by someone else. That is also incorrect. By publishing and distributing these comments Wikipedia would be giving them more distribution than they already have and could be liable for damages if there were any (especially if it is established that the Alexander ciriticism was not notable before being published in Wikipedia). Again, this is all ridiculously theoretical because I don't think there is any likelihood at all that Spivak would sue, so please do not mistake my meaning here. (5) You say that a lawsuit would be "invalidated" because there is little financial damage -- it is not. It probably is rendered extremely unlikely but that does not mean it would be invalidated if someone decided to sue.

Let me repeat my original point again, however -- none of this is the least bit likely. I don't think Spivak would sue at all, and I never said I thought she would. But I take the accusation of "chilling effect" quite seriously and I don't think I did anything that could be taken that way. I have not threatened anyone nor have I stated that such a lawsuit is even remotely likely. My point all along is that we should avoid defaming Spivak because it is the right thing for Wikipedia to do. csloat 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you believed defamation to be so inapplicable, why did you make such a big deal out of it? That was why he made his comment, because you were polluting the discussion with information that is not only irrelevant by your own assessment, but incorrect. Which other case did you cite? I don't have the time to dig through all of this writing. And do you seriously expect me to dig through all of the federal and state case histories to find a basis for this tangential issue? The issue with financial damages is not whether it's "worth the effort," it's that the judge will throw out the case if there are no significant financial damages, because that is a determining factor in defamation, except in rare cases (and there's no reason to believe at all that this falls under that category). Note that in the one case you cited, he lost his job (i.e. financial damage) and this was used as a basis for the suit. I've heard the same thing before from every lawyer I've talked to about defamation where criteria was brought up. This is why you need to listen to actual lawyers instead of reading summaries (or the statutes outside the context of casw law)--they have read through the case law and more than just what is listed in the relevant statutes.

(2) The problem is that there are a lot of comments and edits, which is why I asked. I don't really have the time to sort through all of it, but I have read a good amount. It's generally not a good idea to expect people coming in from an RFC to find the relevant evidence instead of you laying it out--because I can't judge the extent to which it was outright lying, misleading or whatever just on someone's word alone, that would defeat the purpose of getting outside opinions. (3) Where have the Wikimedia lawyers stated this? Without a legal presence in the UK, how would the plantiff(s) even collect if Wikimedia refused to give any money? (4) What's your basis for saying this? Where in any case law, statutes or testimony by legal experts does it say that quoting a defamatory quote would qualify as defamation? Widely syndicated newspapers quote relevant defamatory statement when a lawsuit is newsworthy. (5) Again, without singificant financial damages, the judge will just dismiss the case as per standard practice. Emotional distress and any other potential basis doesn't really apply here. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I do not believe I was the one who made a big deal out of defamation -- it was JrFace who created a separate section for this stuff. If I made a "big deal" out of anything, it was WP:BLP. If you go back through the arguments you will see that I acknowledged before he started this section that a defamation lawsuit was not likely and that we should avoid defaming people because it is the right thing to do, not because a suit is likely. The other case I cited was Milkovich. If you don't have time to dig through this writing, why spend time arguing about it? Financial damages are not one of the essential elements of defamation; but nobody in their right mind would bother with a case without any. And, as you know, they are subjective; a good lawyer will come up with plenty based on the circumstances if necessary. Please stop telling me who to listen to. (2) I'm sorry you felt you were dragged here by the RfC. I did not start the RfC, but the person who started it has closed it. But I think the debate on this issue is finished - I have come to the conclusion that enough people here think the Alexander article is important enough to cite here that it should be cited here, and I have helped construct the paragraph that mentions it in such a way that it is NPOV and accurate and acceptable to the consensus of readers here. If you have specific thoughts on improving the article here, please share them, but there's no reason to drag on a debate about defamation law. (3) I don't know that Wikimedia lawyers have said it, but if they are "actual lawyers" like the ones you keep referring to, they would say it if their client asked them. A lot of defamation suits are carried out in the UK for precisely this reason. The case was tossed, but Wikimedia was recently sued in France for defamation. It doesn't matter that they are in the US or anywhere else, they certainly distribute information internationally and thus are potentially liable to face lawsuits anywhere in the world. So is anyone who uses the internet by the way. You're right that it might be difficult for someone to collect through a british court but do you really think Wikimedia is going to take a blatantly and publicly illegal stance by telling the British courts to stick it? (4) Publishing companies are sued all the time for the defamatory statements of a writer in one of their publications. Why? The company has deeper pockets than the writer. I am sure that "actual lawyers" would tell you that this is correct. You mention the quoting of statements from a lawsuit, but that is not what is at issue here -- I am not saying Wikipedia wouldn;t or shouldn't quote lawsuits when they are notable. (5) The judge may not find the case worth the court's time, but that is not the issue. And a lawyer will come up with damages. And what makes you say emotional distress doesn't apply -- certainly being called a terrorist supporter could be upsetting to someone.

Finally, let me emphasize again, the issue is not whether a lawsuit is likely or financially viable, but rather that WP:BLP cautions against defaming subjects of articles because it is the right thing to do. csloat 05:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see this talk page active again. Isn't all of this now moot? I don't think anyone is challenging the article as it is written now. Nick Graves 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't the article so much as trying to prevent legal misinformation from being spread, which leads to paranoia when it comes to other articles if not properly address. It would behoove you to listen to experts on the matter instead insisting that reading summaries online qualifies you to make such a judgment. You have cited a grand total of 2 cases (there is much, much more case law both at the state and federal level) and paraphrased an overview of the qualifications for defamation, without realizing that those individual criteria are clarified in detail by the case law, not the statutes.

With respect to the damage done, you must establish "competent evidence of actual injury," which in actual case law, including at least one SCOTUS case (which you don't appear to be aware of), requires proving financial damages if it is defamation per quod (which is the vast majority of cases, including this one). In other words, this is necessary to win the case, and isn't just an issue of practicality. Given my confirmation via multiple lawyers and researching actual case law (including the SCOTUS case), I can't see any evidence from you to believe otherwise (e.g. an important case where financial damage weren't necessary to prove). Do you have grounds (i.e. case law) to believe that this is, instead, defamation per se? Were you even aware of that legal terminology before? That's one of the main reasons you need to rely on lawyers, because they've dredged through the case law. References: [23], [24], [25].

If a retraction is made in a reasonable amount of time (which would be done with Wikipedia), it is extremely unlikely that any court will award anything ([26]). Historically, U.S. courts have been very reluctant to enforce libel judgments from the U.K. and from other countries ([27]). It is nice that the Wikimedia Foundation won a lawsuit in France, but even if they lost, there would be no way to enforce the judgment on a U.S. company. Additionally, there's no reason for them to needlessly be on bad terms with the French judicial system, so they did that to avoid a default judgment. In response to another claim you made, what evidence do you have that a judge would throw out a valid case (sans extra-legal compromise between the two parties) for the sake of saving the courts time? When has a judge ever had that power? -Nathan J. Yoder 05:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. Please stop telling me who to listen to - your assessment that my legal knowledge comes from "reading summaries online" is completely inaccurate (and it is rather ironic, since everything you cite comes from an online summary). I cited the only two Supreme Court cases that were relevant to the discussion; if you know of others please feel free to share. Yes I was quite aware of the distinction between per se and per quod and you are wrong about it -- this would most likely be a per se case (as I noted above, actually), since the context has nothing to do with the defamatory nature of the content. Your own legal interpretation of the likelihood of winning such a libel case is really completely irrelevant here, as I have explained over and over again. You are misinterpreting several of my comments and you still show a fundamental misunderstanding of the very law you are chiding me for not consulting a lawyer about. An author could certainly sue Wikimedia in the UK. And the fact that Wikimedia could refuse to pay is totally irrelevant -- do you really think Wikimedia would openly flout the British courts just because they can? And, finally, I must again protest that you have ignored the basic point that I agree with you that a lawsuit here is completely unlikely, and I have stated that from the outset. Now, I have tired of this argument -- I don't see any point in trying to convince you of anything as you have misinterpreted many of my comments and ignored the fundamental premise of my position. If you aren't suggesting any actual changes to the article, perhaps we should just drop it? csloat 08:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledged your premise in the very first sentence of my previous comment, you seem to have ignored that I did. It is pointless to even bring up the libel potential here if you think it's a moot point. I think that you're acting in bad faith to refuse to acknowledge that you're wrong about this, or at the very least, that it was insufficiently researched by you (two cases--I'm sure that's up to the lowest legal clerk standards). This makes your naked accusations of misinterpretation less credible. I apologize for telling you to listen to experts, although I don't know why you would want to ignore them. I don't know how to interpret this kind of statement (rejecting expertise), combined with you ignoring all state law and basically relying on just two cases except that you have an understanding you got from a minimal reading about the law. Don't accuse people of making fundamental misunderstandings when you're not only contradicting experts, but it's been proven that you overlooked easily found case law that's relevant and when I presented it, you didn't even read the source, hence why you think they're all summaries and are asking about the SCOTUS case. If you read my comment, you'd notice that I had already acknowledged that you think it's a moot point and I explained that I wanted to debunk legal misinformation to prevent it from spreading. Assuming everything I quoted was a summary, which is not true (you don't seem to have read it), it wouldn't be ironic, unless they constituted everything that I have read. Please read through the links I provided. I don't know why you aren't acknowledging much of what they, the pages written by legal experts, have said regarding financial damage. One of them provides the SCOTUS citation (and another one) I was referring to (again, which you overlooked): Gertz v. Robert Welch and Averill v. Superior Court. In your prior claim that it was per se defamation, you asserted that Wikimedia would somehow be responsible, but provided no basis at all for this that this sort of legal 'guilt by association' exists. You didn't really specify why it's per se, except to say it is. You even acknowledge a need to take it in the context of other statements Alexander made stating the opposite to establish that he knowingly lied. He doesn't even outright say that the guy supports terrorism, just that he comes close to doing it. Where's the case law for this? Furthermore, do you really think the Wikimedia Foundation would be a party to a frivilous lawsuit that they know they'd lose? That's absurd. By your logic, if Chinese courts convict the Wikimedia employees to death for spreading 'anti-Chinese government information,' they should honor the request. It's clear that just because a foreign court decides something, doesn't mean that it should be honored, especially if its finding is absurd. -Nathan J. Yoder 09:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot, you should check the one link I added which both summarizes and cites a particular case regarding retraction (this one). You response doesn't acknowledge it. This is probably the most relevant of all, because even in cases of defamation, lawsuits will be thrown out if a prompt retraction is made. -Nathan J. Yoder 09:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. You whine that I only cite two Supreme Court cases; that is because only those two are relevant to the issue that I was referring to at the time. I am not going to cite irrelevant cases just to have more citations. You've completely misinterpreted most of what I said and your understanding of the cases you cite appears to be limited only to what you think will win an argument here. I did explain why this was libel per se as opposed to per quod -- for the third time now, being called a supporter of terrorism is arguably defamatory on its face. You make up a claim of "guilt by association" that has nothing to do with anything I ever actually said. You are essentially putting words in my mouth and then demanding that I defend them. The only correct point you made was that I ignored your point about Wikipedia publishing a retraction -- I ignored it because it was completely irrelevant to the matter at hand (are you seriously suggesting that we should publish defamatory comments even when we know they are defamatory because we can always retract them later?) Look, I don't care anymore what you think lawyers will do with a defamation claim in a court -- it is totally irrelevant. I have no wish to pursue such an argument with you, especially when you accuse me of bad faith and of ignoring or rejecting expertise. The talk page is for discussion about how to improve the article. It would probably be best if we drop discussions that are not about that. csloat 12:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Yoder, you have mistakenly attributed one of my comments to csloat.[28] I was the one who said that this discussion is now moot, at least with regard to this article, since no one is challenging the text as currently written. The discussion is now not about how to improve the article, but about a tangential topic which, while not unimportant, is not going to affect the article one way or the other. If Mr. Yoder is right, the Alexander criticism will stay. And if csloat is right, the Alexander criticism will still stay, since csloat is not challenging any of the content, and has said so explicitly. I doubt csloat's legal claims will have a "chilling" effect on Wikipedia. This is simply too remote a corner of Wikipedia to worry about that. Unless either of you think the outcome of this discussion is going to change how the Spivak article is written, perhaps this is a discussion best moved eleswhere, like maybe the WP:BLP talk page. Nick Graves 15:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I am not inclined to continue pursuing this topic at another venue either. I am not a lawyer, Yoder is not a lawyer, and everything either of us says about what we think would happen in an actual case is pure speculation, which is why I find it odd this conversation continued this long. The BLP issues could certainly be clarified further, but not by us continuing to engage in what appears to have become empty agonistics. csloat 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Eagleton

I restored the full eagleton quotation though I moved it so it would seem less of a non sequitur. I don't think it is non sequitur, even though Nick is correct that it does not state the reason he said she was "inaccessible." In context he actually says is that she is more inaccessible than himself (or the "literary elitists"). In any case it seems deceptive to simply quote "inaccessible" as if it were Eagleton's main judgement about Spivak's work -- the other quote that I included definitely shows that he feels she is not totally inaccessible, and in fact that she is accessible enough to have had such an impact. csloat 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why a piece by Edward Alexander that has little or no relevance to Spivak's notability is in here? Relata refero 06:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

JrFace is the editor who fought to keep it there, and he has left the discussion. He posted an RFC on this page and got several other editors to join the discussion, and they were convinced that Alexander was notable enough to include. I stopped fighting against that and simply insisted that if we mention Alexander we keep the mention NPOV and accurate. I would not be opposed to revisiting the issue and perhaps having a vote on who thinks this info is vital to this page. My guess is that those of us who are academics lean toward keeping it out, and those coming to the page without knowing much about Spivak other than what they can find on the web lean toward keeping it in. There are certainly more than a few right wing weblogs that quote Alexander. csloat 09:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, we can wait a bit and try another RfC. I certainly don't think it belongs in there, but I can see how my perspective might affect that. Relata refero 12:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)