User talk:Politikundtheorie

Welcome!

Hello, Politikundtheorie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quis separabit? 22:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Brown (political scientist)

Hi. Thanks for your good faith edits to the Wendy Brown article but please try to remember all articles on Wikipedia should be comprehensible to as many editors as possible. We don't all hold PhDs nor are we all familiar with gender theory. Please remember not to include POV text OR synthetic text or original research and that text must be cited from what are considered to be reliable sources. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Quis separabit?. I did my best to reduce jargon and to make the content of the previous entries more comprehensible. If there are further issues with the content as it stands I would be more than happy to edit for further clarification and simplification of terminology in political theory and gender theory. Best, Politikundtheorie Politikundtheorie (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 7, 2017

Dear Quis separabit?,

As you will see, I "undid" just one of your most recent edits to the page for Wendy Brown. This edit moved a long quote from a footnote into the main body of the article. I did this not out of malice of any kind. I simply do not think the quote belongs there. Here are a number of reasons:

1 The quote is from the magazine "The Nation" and was written as a kind of polemic for this (public and political) readership. It therefore does not have the same kind of status as Brown's numerous publications (in books and articles) that intervene into important debates in feminist theory. (This is, after all, an article on a political philosopher and section entitled "Thought and Overview of Work.")

If this is not convincing, I hope some of the following points might be, for the seem to be even more important considerations to me:

2 The quote is from 1990, five years before the book States of Injury (1995) was even published. It therefore should not be tacked on to the end of a section that is dedicated to Brown's 1995 book. This neither makes sense as a way of organizing the information in an academic article, nor does it make sense in an encyclopedic entry. Moreover, the citation and reference for this quotation does not have a link to the original magazine article, which means that it is impossible for someone to click on and read the piece to understand its context -- and most importantly, the ways that it does or does not correspond to the more developed positions articulated in States of Injury (1995).

3 The quote is best characterized less as an argument of her own than as an ad hominem and polemical attack on MacKinnon. This does not disqualify it as a possible Wikipedia entry, of course. But it would be better placed under a section on Debates or Interlocutors or something of the like. Now that I think about it, the quote would best fit under a "Criticism" section on MacKinnon's page. (I could place the quote there, where it would seem more fitting.

Thank you, Quis separabit?, for the Wiki welcome, for your previous suggestions, and for this edit. I hope that these are convincing reasons to either keep the quote in a footnote or, if it seems better, to delete it from the page altogether and place it elsewhere -- under debates in feminism or under the MacKinnon page.

Best, Politikundtheorie (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]