Talk:Luce Irigaray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

This article is part of WikiProject Critical Theory, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to critical theory on Wikipedia. We have prepared a list of other articles in the field of critical theory. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I moved this tag from the main page! Please put WikiProject tags in talk pages in future :) VivaEmilyDavies 22:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Sexed equations and bombastic utterances 2 Silly "criticism" sections 3 CNRS and other affiliations 4 what about Freud?

[edit] Sexed equations and bombastic utterances

What, nothing in here about Irigaray's assertion that E=mc^2 is phallocentric? Nor her related claim that science cannot formulate an accurate model of turbulence because it refuses to acknowledge the Awesome Power of the Vagina? 85.64.246.205 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly "criticism" sections

I removed the Sokal digression a couple months ago. I apologize that my edit summary was not descriptive... I would not normally do that: the poor summary was a glitch either by the software or by my brain, though I can't remember which now. (I had been experiencing problems with "save" timing out in the past, so the bad summary may have been a second try after I removed whitespace too).

In any case, I continue to be uncomfortable with spurious (less generous would be "moronic") criticisms stuck into articles on academics. Actually, not just academics: I've seen the same thing in technical topics, like ones about computer programming. There's this really terribly wrong idea of "balance" that floats around that every presentation of a topic has to have a critic or criticism. But the notability of academics is not firstly the fact that someone or another has criticized their thinking... in fact, any thinker notable enough for an article has probably acquired critics, since that's the nature of academia. It's in the nature of the beast, however, that every thinker who has been moderately widely read, has a dozen professors and hundreds of graduate students, who have written something criticizing some aspect of their thought. Heck, I've probably published something with criticism of Irigaray, albeit passing criticism... I don't want whatever little essay I published in grad school in this encyclopedia article.

I certainly think that whatever Sokal writes is notable in the article about him, or about his books in which the criticisms are stated, or like that. But the article on a criticized subject should not have the criticism unless it speaks in some notable way to their reason for notability. In this case, it's just barely plausible to qualify under that criterion. The stated issue about 'E=mc^2' and phallocentrism is roughly relevant to something actually in Irigaray; actually I'm not sure about that, since I can't recall that in Irigaray—it seems plausible that she comments something like that though. In contrast, there had been something in the Lacan article that said something like "Sokal says that even though he never read Lacan, he's sure it's gibberish" (which was utterly non-notable).

If some editor can make a plausible case that the passing criticism actually relates to Irigaray's notability, I guess it's not so terrible for the article. Not great, but maybe bearable. Such a case, of course, should not be: "Irigaray is wrong, and readers must be alerted to the fact". Right or wrong, it's not our job to ferret out the truth of philosophical claims. Absent a level of plausibility, I'll probably take out the paragraph as non-notable. LotLE×talk 00:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason Irigaray came to my attention was due to the mentioned criticisms of such (hilarious) statements. I think that when something you have said becomes so widely discussed and commented, it becomes notable enough for inclusion in the article. --Lost Goblin 19:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CNRS and other affiliations

Like many people, I've never been able to find evidence of Luce Irigaray on the CNRS website or documents. Does anyone have a citation from CNRS to corroborate the claim that she's affiliated?

I'm adding mentions of universities at which she's recently taught. Shom02 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)shom02

[edit] what about Freud?

there is nothing here about Freud? He was one of the biggest influences of Irigaray!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.104.23 (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC).