Talk:Queer theory

Untitled Wiki Ed section

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 10 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abbie.Beckley (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Siobhanwebb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Gobbledygook in the Criticism section

There is so much gobbledygook in the Criticism section, that I'm considering removing all the content and replacing it with an {{Empty section}} template. Not because a section on this topic is unwarranted, but because in its current form it is so inscrutable and useless, that it would be significantly easier to create a good Criticism section from scratch, than it would be to repair this one.

I will excerpt all 20 references from the section, and post them here for possible reuse. For now, I'd just like to hear thoughts on whether anyone thinks this section is worth saving in its current or modified form. I may make a bold attempt at a relaunch after some significant time has gone by, if there doesn't seem to be a consensus to keep and modify.

I think the inscrutable fifth paragraph (beginning, "In other way, for Ian Barnard...") is worse than average; maybe the rest of the section would appear to better advantage without it.

Paragraph six attempts a tripartite division of criticism, and if there's consensus for it, perhaps this could be moved to the top of a new section. But that might just be one scholar's viewpoint, so not sure if that's a good move or not.

As a little Gedankenexperiment, try explaining or paraphrasing the excerpts from the Criticism section, to your primary school child the smartest person you know:

Some sample sentences from the Criticism section

Some sample sentences from the Criticism section from rev 900968866 of the article (not in chrono order): Critics of queer theory are concerned that the approach obscures or glosses altogether the material conditions that underpin discourse. Tim Edwards argues that queer theory extrapolates too broadly from textual analysis in undertaking an examination of the social. Green argues that queer is itself an identity category that some self-identified "queer theorists" and "queer activists" use to consolidate a subject-position outside of the normalizing regimes of gender and sexuality. These examples call into question the degree to which identity categories need be thought of as negative, in the evaluative sense of that term, as they underscore the self-determining potentials of the care of the self – an idea advanced first by Foucault in Volumes II and III of The History of Sexuality. Adam Green argues that Barnard implicitly rejects the queer theoretical conceptions of sexuality on the grounds that such work fails to account for particularity of racialized sexualities. In other way, for Ian Barnard, any consideration of sexuality must include inextricability with racialized subjectivities. So, one of the leading volumes of queer theory engages the subject via conventional sociological epistemologies that conceive of subject positions constituted through systems of stratification and organized around shared experience and identity. Another criticism is that queer theory, in part because it typically has recourse to a very technical jargon, is written by a narrow elite for that narrow elite. Oh wait— that last sentence is perfectly clear. What's it doing here? And why can't they all be like that?

Some of the stuff is so abstruse, that I'm sure it scares a lot of editors off from even attempting to edit it. For example, is there a typo in the following sentence that turned an assertion into its opposite?

• These standards have led to appropriation of work that was deemed unfit and have created a stark exclusion of people who can access the material.^{(emphasis added)}

At least this sentence is understandable. But, did they mean, who can, or cannot, access the material? My guess is "cannot", but who knows? This, and other content of this type, makes this section unfixable, in my opinion. Nobody knows what the editor who wrote this line meant, and whether by replacing can with cannot you are improving the article, or not. Likewise, imho, the clear majority of the section is basically unfixable, and should be blanked and rewritten. Requesting your feedback on which is easier. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the references from the Criticism section:

List of references from the Criticism section

<ref name = "Edwards">Edwards, Tim (1998), "Queer Fears: Against the Cultural Turn", Sexualities, 1 (4): 471–484, doi:10.1177/136346098001004005</ref> <ref name="Green1">Green, Adam (2002), "Gay But Not Queer: Toward a Post-Queer Study of Sexuality", Theory and Society, 31 (4): 521–545, doi:10.1023/A:1020976902569</ref> <ref>Laurie, Timothy (2014), "The Ethics of Nobody I Know: Gender and the Politics of Description", Qualitative Research Journal, 14 (1): 64–78, doi:10.1108/qrj-03-2014-0011, hdl:10453/44221</ref> <ref name = Green2>Green, Adam (2007), "Queer Theory and Sociology: Locating the Subject and the Self in Sexuality Studies", Sociological Theory, 25 (1): 26–45, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.00296.x</ref> <ref>Warner, M. 1993. "Introduction." Pp. viii–xxxi in Fear of a Queer Planet. Queer Politics and Social Theory, edited by M. Warner. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.</ref> <ref>Barnard, I. 1999. "Queer Race." Social Semiotics 9(2):199–211.</ref> <ref>Jagose, A. 1996. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University Press.</ref> <ref name=4-encylopedia>"Queer Theory and the Social Construction of Sexuality". Homosexuality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 15 November 2011.</ref> <ref>Green, A. I. "Queer Theory and Sociology: Locating the Subject and the Self in Sexuality Studies". University of Toronto.</ref> <ref>Beemyn, Brett; Eliason, Michele (1996-01-01). Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Anthology. NYU Press. ISBN 9780814712573.</ref> <ref name=":2">Cohen, J. Cathy (1997). "Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics" (PDF). GLQ. 3: 437–465. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-08-04.</ref> <ref name="Green">Green, Adam Isaiah (2010), "Remembering Foucault: Queer Theory & Disciplinary Power", Sexualities, 13 (3): 316–337, doi:10.1177/1363460709364321</ref> <ref>Kaiser, Charles, Larry Kramer's Case Against "Queer" Advocate.com, April 29, 2009.</ref> <ref>"Inside Higher Ed's News". www.insidehighered.com.</ref> <ref>"The Daily Beast". The Daily Beast.</ref> <ref name=kramer>Kramer, Larry (2011), "Queer Theory's Heist of Our History", Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 16 (5), archived from the original on 15 December 2011, retrieved 5 December 2011 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)</ref> <ref>D’Emilio, J. (1983). Capitalism and gay identity. Families in the US: Kinship and domestic politics, 131-41.</ref> <ref>Hooks, Bell (1991). "Theory as liberatory practice". Yale Journal of Law and Feminism. 4: 1.</ref> <ref>Queer Theory: The French Response, Stanford University Press, 2016.</ref> <ref name = "Gamson">Gamson, Josh (2000), "Sexualities, Queer Theory, and Qualitative Research", in Denzin, N.; Lincoln, Y. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.), Sage Publications, pp. 347–65</ref>

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

TNT? Little improvement over the last decade

While there have been valiant efforts by editors over the years, some of the problems noted on this Talk page going back a dozen years are still problematic. I think there might be a case for WP:Blow it up and start over here. Here are selected highlights of issues noted above (some of these may be long fixed):

• #Problems – "poorly writteen" (2007); a mess; no definition (2012)
• #wrong from the start – confuses one particular theory of QT, with QT itself (2006);
• #Rewrite needed – POV pushing, inappropriate tone (2007); worse than nothing, incomprehensible (8/07); inaccessible (2007)
• #Please check – needs to be rewritten (2007); German article is better (2007)
• #Confused and Poorly Written – confused and jumbled (2008); no definition (2009); showboating editor (2009)
• #criticisms – needs streamlining (2009)
• #Lede?? WTF – the lead is pseudobabble (2010) [quotes long section which remains largely the same]; convoluted (2012)
• #Critique of queer theory section – paragraph lifted from Green paper (2011) [paragraph 2 of current version still is largely the same]
• #long-term unaddressed problems with this article – OR tag from 2011 still there (2013) [still there now]
• #Of course it's incomprehensible! – if the definition as "post-structuralist critical theory" is correct, then that's why (2014)
• #Introduction Fails – unable to define it after reading the lead (2017) [still true]
• #Clarity, please! – needs a shorter introduction that crisply and clearly defines queer theory (Mar 2018) [still true]
• #Gobbledygook in the Criticism section – section should be blanked (2019) [just added today]

My own contribution, the last one in the list above, is only one in a long list of complaints about this article. Very possibly, it's time for WP:TNT. I don't often think (maybe once before) that an article is worth blanking and starting from scratch, but this might be one of those cases. I will notify a couple of lists, and top authors and TP editors here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Rather than just talk about something theoretical and try to guess whether something that doesn't exist yet would be better than the article we have, it would be better to have something concrete to compare it to. So I'm coming up with a new draft. Will notify, when I have it ready. Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I've gone through a couple of paragraphs of the criticism section and attempted to remedy some of the more egregious sentences, but it's all so disorganized I agree that simply rewriting would be better. Gnomenea (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I support this effort. The article as it is is awful and unencyclopedically written. TNT seems warranted to me. It would be nice if the new article could explain clearly how queer theory fits in with other fields and what theoretical assumptions it makes that are themselves controversial (such as social constructionism). -Crossroads- (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot, Gnomenea, and Crossroads1: I'm always a supporter of stubbification for articles like these. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 16:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: I will reply to the Rfc (see below) shortly. Only replying here, to let you know that I have no idea what you are requesting above, with your "Please notify" comment. Btw, in reply to my own, long-ago comment: RL got in the way, and I don't have another draft, so we should proceed without it. Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, that's a standard request to notify me included in my signature. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 08:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just went ahead and blew up the article, since most people here agree that it should be TNT'ed (and I agree). It is now a stub. Bye. --Wiki-Wuzzy (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Stubbed

As above, there's been concerns over this article for years, and its state before I stubbed it was complete nonsense, with no clear definition of queer theory and several contradictions, along with chronic journal spam- in fact, the entire article just seemed to be a series of nonsensical fringe theories. If someone is planning a rewrite, please make sure it doesn't become the nonsense it was before. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees, Thank you for doing this. I went ahead and updated the cleanup tags. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the inherent complexities of the topic, your apparent position that the existing article was entirely unacceptable bodes poorly for reconstructing this article. Queer theory is a category of thought - an ongoing conversation, rather than a single position within that conversation. Other articles pertaining to broad philosophical and sociological schools of thought are routinely at least this complicated, at least at face value. If this article needs to be multiple articles, that's another matter. GearheadLydia (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Moneytrees, but given that GearheadLydia disagrees and another user has reverted Moneytrees' change, it seems like we need to reach a consensus on this. warmly, ezlev. talk 02:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've created a RfC for this issue. Please see below. warmly, ezlev. talk 02:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Moneytrees. Someone added that the article needed to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards on 13th November, and that's cool, I understand the rationale. Then I noticed that you have recently deleted the page for Queer Theory and wanted people to start over with the entire article. Do you *need* to delete the article in order for the rewrite to start happening? I agree with GearheadLydia above, Query Theory is a relatively new category of thought that keeps evolving. As of right now, the issues raised with the article is that it contains original research, deal primarily with Western culture and do not represent a worldwide view, and the article being too technical -- none of which in my opinion stops the article from giving the reader a basic understanding of the subject at hand. I have read the Talk page and the rationale behind the TNT, but most of the criticisms there do not exist anymore except for the #Gobbledygook in the Criticism section, which I totally agree with them that we should rework that one section. Disclaimer: I am the one who restored the article, I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Conancat (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Stub this article?

Multiple users have raised concerns over serious and potentially inherent issues with this article over the past several years; this can be seen in the talk page sections above. Other users have resisted suggestions that we WP:NUKEIT, with one suggesting that the article might instead be broken up into multiple smaller articles.

Should we:

• Option 1: Make no major change to the article.
• Option 2: WP:STUBIFY the article, then recreate it.
• Option 3: Break up the article into multiple smaller topics.

warmly, ezlev. talk 02:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 2: Stubify the article, then recreate it. I have a decent understanding of what queer theory is, and this article is still very difficult for me to understand. I want a high-quality and informational article to be available for anyone who looks up queer theory on Wikipedia, as I'm sure everyone reading this does, and the unfortunate reality is that this article is neither high-quality or informational. Several of the issues with this article have persisted through several years and multiple attempted cleanups or fixes; I see no reason why that will not continue to be true if we keep attempting to build on such a warped foundation. I think the best option is to blow it up and start over. warmly, ezlev. talk 03:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 I came across this largely because a friend mentioned that someone had stubbed the queer theory article. I am an anthropology master's candidate, and have some experience with this field; the most glaring flaw in the article is that it has multiple subtopics within the field as part of its focus, rather than being relatively narrowly constrained. (The enormous and meandering criticisms section is perhaps the second most obvious issue to me; it rather needs reformatting.) Any field where Foucault is involved is bound to be convoluted, but this page certainly isn't unsalvageable; it just needs to be more narrowly constrained and edited for clarity. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3: I have to agree that a lot of the worst problems of this article are evidently created by trying to cram everything pertaining to the idea of queer theory into it as an omnibus instead of more focused articles. In general, this article repeatedly demonstrates the problem of presenting examples of things as the essence of the thing, but I think the reason this happens is because the article has been burdened with attempting to do too much at once. Some specific concepts that recur in queer theory -- like its relation to critical theory and queer theorists' frequent emphasis on anti-assimilation positions -- as well as overview history like the backdrop against which the field of queer theory as a whole developed, are definitely going to come up and should be explained here. However, in its current state, this article often reads as trying to explain in depth every major queer theorist's position on pertinent issues. GearheadLydia (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally: I think my biggest concern is that, in the interim before significant additions can be effected, the stubbed version of the article was so vague as to be nearly useless, except to signal that something should be here and isn't. If we can do better than that in the interim, we probably should. Also, we should probably be considering how this article got this way before just saying "okay, time to start over". As ezlev said, if we build over a warped foundation, we're going to get consistently poor results - but I suspect the underlying warped foundation is the overly nebulous scope of this article. GearheadLydia (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@GearheadLydia: This is compelling to me. I think there are issues with sourcing and construction in addition to scope, but creating multiple smaller articles might make it easier to address those things without the risk of nuking good content in the process. (Struckthrough 07:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC), please see discussion section below.) @Moneytrees: I'd love to hear your thoughts on this since you're the one who stubbed the article and I initially agreed with your reasoning. warmly, ezlev. talk 04:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 We can employ option three later if the article is re-expanded with reliable references and starts overly-lengthy with said reliable information. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 03:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 03:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2. WP:TNT well describes why that is the best option in cases such as this. This article's very low quality has been complained about for years; see #TNT? Little improvement over the last decade by Mathglot above. Anything that isn't random undue opinions or incomprehensible can be brought back afterward. Splitting the article into several will not solve any of that. Articles have to be based on notable topics and not be redundant forks of other topics. Even if nothing is cut, the readable prose is not at a WP:SIZESPLIT level, so there is no reason to carve off subtopics within the field into small articles when they can all be treated together as part of the field as a whole. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 – WP:TNT per Crossroads, and arguments at #TNT? Little improvement over the last decade above. Do not split, per Crossroads, and per WP:NOPAGE policy. It's way easier to raze a house that is falling apart and build a new one from scratch on a strong foundation using new blueprints, than to try to jack up the old house, redo the foundations, and replace the walls, floors, and roof brick by brick. Call in the new architects and construction crew, and let them do it right from the beginning. This doesn't mean we can't save precious old furniture and chandeliers, and install them in the new house later, but that happens *after* the new structure is in place; we don't try and build the new house around them. Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, per above. More words does not equate to more utility; a three-paragraph article could be more informative to the average reader than this. — Bilorv (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. If future editors want to use prose from the article in other pages, that prose will still exist in the article history. As of right now, it's not doing any good here. Morgan695 (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. I think the article should be stubbified and recreated. A number of sections include references to other articles as their Main Articles on Wikipedia and perhaps content from those could be copied over (WP:COPYWITHIN) or used as a guide to structure the current one better. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Whichever option is chosen, as far as taking a fresh, top-down look at the topic, I recommend considering two options: how other tertiary sources define and structure their articles on Queer theory, and also to consider the structure and scope of introductory college articles on the topic. In the case of the former, you can just check encyclopedias online or at your local library. In case of the latter, there are countless examples. Here's one, from the introductory course at the University of Massachusetts (skip to page 8 of the pdf for the course description). (I am not endorsing this course as a shining example; this was simply the first one that came up in search.) You can find many more examples of intro college courses via this search. I think that how encyclopedias approach the topic, and how university course descriptions organize their coursework into a semester, could be a good initial proxy for how we should approach this article. Finally, I'm partial to SEP (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) when they happen to have an article about something. Unfortunately, SEP doesn't have a dedicated article about QT, but they do have a chapter on it, in the article on Homosexuality; it can be found here. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Ezlev's comment above:

creating multiple smaller articles might make it easier to address those things without the risk of nuking good content in the process.

Please remember that "nuking" means starting over. Unlike an actual nuke, nothing is destroyed; it's all there in the history, preserved in pristine condition, just waiting for the right moment to be reused. The "furniture" and "chandeliers" will simply be in storage for a little bit, while a proper, shining new edifice is constructed for them. No need to leave them to rot in the shabby, old one. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, this is a good point, and you're right. Thanks for catching me on that. warmly, ezlev. talk 07:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I really don't have any remaining reasons why stubbing this article isn't a good idea; but I'm nonetheless concerned that this article is just going to end up back in the same place again if we don't have a specific idea of what we want out of the new article, or an idea of what specific problems led to the problems we're seeing now. That absolutely doesn't mean we shouldn't try anyway even if we can't pin that down, though. GearheadLydia (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@GearheadLydia:, I agree with you; random, drive-by edits to a stub, from good-faith but inexperienced editors who know little about this complex topic, could go haywire. I'd like to lay out my thoughts about how to avoid that, and steer a new stub onto the right track. Please see section "#Creation of a structured stub", below. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Ezlev, have you listed this Rfc at some projects, per WP:APPNOTE? We could use some more opinions. Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, I believe I dream of horses notified several projects near the beginning of the RfC, per the small print in their comment in the survey section. warmly, ezlev. talk 17:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ezlev: Oh yes, I see now; I missed that. Thanks; we'll hopefully get some more. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Creation of a structured stub

I think User:GearheadLydia's concern that things could go haywire again if picked up from a stub is a valid one. I'd like to propose a framework for an approach that I believe will avoid this. I think the risk of it going sideways again is highest, if we just plunk a stub out there, with no framework or vision for future expansion. Instead of doing that, we should define a structure on our own first here, and then create the stub.

Tl;dr if you want to skip the rest of this, is: go to /New framework sandbox and either create a new article stub skeleton of your own by defining and naming the section structure, or modify an existing one. We can come up with a consensus for the best one and develop it, and use that as the new stub.

Details: My proposal, is that we leave the current article in place as is *for the time being* (a couple weeks?), and decide first, here on the Talk page, on a new article structure *before* we TNT it down to a stub, so that we all have an idea, more or less, of an agreed migration path towards a good article.

By "article structure", I mean, basically, a set of section headers and subsection headers, but with no content in them (or maximum, with one sentence, if the section title is obscure or technical, and a scoping definition is required). As examples of what I am talking about, please see example one, and Draft talk:War guilt question/French article sections. These examples have section headers, but no content; they point the way to a future article.

We can do something like that. The choice of section and subsection titles define a particular approach to a new article that we could take. We can define this new structure here in WP:TALKSPACE, before we actually write the stub, using WP:SUBPAGEs of this Talk page to develop an approach to a new article structure, as shown in the linked examples. And, there can be more than one approach, we can compare different approaches and pick one, or we can all contribute to one approach and try to find consensus, whatever works.

Once we have an agreed-upon skeleton framework consisting of nothing but section titles, we can proceed to the next step, which is to start adding content. We don't have to write a complete article here, but should try to add a least one sentence per section, and one reference each. At that point, we can blow up the current article, and replace it with our new stubbed skeleton.

The reason for this kind of approach, rather than just blow it up and place a bare sentence or paragraph at the article now, is to address GearheadLydia's concern. Most editors trying to improve an article in good faith, will add a bit of content here or there, within the existing article structure. If we specify that structure at the outset, then we will be providing a vision for future expansion. (Naturally, like everything else here, the article structure is also subject to change by consensus, but to the extent that three or more of us agree on an approach here now, that will establish an a priori consensus at least as a starting point, and will be resistant to arbitrary change by well-meaning newbies, while still being amenable to change by a new consensus of editors that finds something better, which is as it should be.)

How many sections/subsection should we start with? That should also be decided in talk, also. As a wild guess having done this before, I'd say around six to fifteen, and ten is a good number (the current article happens to have ten named sections). Here are the number of sections in articles on Queer theory in other language Wikipedias: ca:8, de:10, es:18, fr:7, it:5, nl:3, pt:7, ru:0 (one long stub; no sections), zh:7.

I've created a hub page (subpage of this page) at /New framework sandbox as a starting point, with some red links you can click to create an article skeleton approach that can be discussed here. Also, this is a Wiki, so feel free to work on any of them, if there are more than one. Hopefully, a few different approaches will get created by interested editors here (I'll create one of them), and then we can all look at them and either compare and see if there's one that stands out, or maybe munge a combination of one or more, as a starting structure for stub development. Then, we can start to flesh it out here in talk space with a sentence or two per section, and some references, and then move it to WP:MAINSPACE as the new stub when we all agree it's ready. How does that sound to everybody?

I hope this approach works, but if not, please feel free to modify it, or propose another one. If you like it, next step is here: ⟶ /New framework sandbox. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Promoted from H3 subsection of the Rfc, to its own section. Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Picking up stubbing question

There appears to be a strong consensus that this article should be stubbed until such a time that a new version of the article can be created. Is there a reason this hasn't happened yet? Morgan695 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, my question is specifically why the article hasn't been stubbed yet; I can see that the creation of a new version of the article is still ongoing. Morgan695 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have just tried to stub the article, but it was insta-reverted, first by a bot, then Moneytrees with a … self-revert?! *shrug* I don't get it. Now do you want to start over or not? o_O --Wiki-Wuzzy (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Moneytrees, IMO you were right to revert the bot, but why did you self-revert and leave this stuff up there? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I had second thoughts. It's one of those things where you've done something recently that you later thought was a bad idea and wish you hadn't done, so when you go to do something else you doubt yourself. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 05:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory and Frameworks Fall 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 6 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rcc90 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Pixie233, Jinngzzz.

— Assignment last updated by Turnj (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Added the section on "Queering family communication." Rcc90 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LGBTQ Reproductive Health

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Beatswithbea (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Beatswithbea (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Queer Theory didn't originate with Critical Theory.

Nor is it a field of Critical Theory. Queer Theory came about from Identity Politics, and the gay liberation movement. In fact the use of the term Queer predates the origins of Critical Theory, and dates back to the drag balls of the 1900s.

There is a brief run down of Queer Theory proper here [1] but again, there's no mention of Critical Theory. In fact, it specifically points towards post-modernism and post-structuralism. Foucault is mentioned, but he's not actually a critical theorist - but a post-modern theorist. He is in fact on record [2] as saying he hadn't read The Frankfurt School critical theorists prior to the bulk of his academic work.

Is any one opposed to me changing the first sentence to describing Queer Theory as a field of Post-Structuralism, as that's a more accurate and directly related academic subject? RecardedByzantian (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer review from CCTP 752 FALL 2022

Hi! It is a colorful page with an interesting section where there are plenty of hyperlinks to the related concepts and fields, in the very beginning of this page. It is easy for people to reach the related concepts and get an overall idea. There are also history and definition parts to introduce this theory, about how it developed and what queerness mean. The application of queer family communication, lens for power and online discourse are also introduced briefly with highlights of quotes to show the main spirit of this theory. I really like this page because the part of theory, challenging the ideas taken for granted, could be seen several times to impress people.

For the structure, it could be more clear if it combines those application parts under a headline of applications, which is easier for people to understand what those paragraphs are talking about. Moreover, the explanations of how the theory connects to individuals and society could also be divided in the page structure. - Lijing Zeng

Jinngzzz (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

From the page, I see queer theory being implemented in analyzing various topics, ranging from power structure to sex partnerships. Because the topics are so diverse, it is harder to establish connections between them. Therefore, I think that the page can be organized by creating a higher-level title such as "in practice", or "application", etc to fit all topics. The other way to do it is by breaking down topics according to social levels, as I see power is more related to institutions or systems, family communication is related to family structure, and partnership is one level down of family. Another thing I would like to see it being elaborated on is the history. I totally agree with whoever made the comment "paragraph needed". I have read some of the articles written by early theorists, and I think their works should be talked about in the history section, especially how they differ from each other. Also, I would recommend moving the section "Queer theory in online discourse" up as a part of "History", so that viewers can know more about later developments of the theory and compare them with the earlier ones. However, I understand that scholars have different opinions on definitions especially as queer might be seen as an umbrella term, and it may be hard to include all different viewpoints. I think the importance is not to "include them all" but to get to know some perspectives with a deeper understanding.---Pixie233 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixie233 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree about moving the section about Online Discourse to History as Queer Theory's origins as an academic field of study are inseparable from activism. Shifting the conception of history to the present would also be relevant for this field of study, highlighting that it is consistenly expanding -- and that its history is still being written.

Perhaps even a more comprehensive historical analysis could be beneficial (not to say we should find the root of the theory, which is impossible, but more about its definition over the decades in the US and beyond). For instance, noting the absence of intersectional minorities' voices in the first decade would be as important as mentioning de Lauretis. Diienko (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What are the tenets of queer theory

In detail 129.0.80.149 (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-16

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 February 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): James073 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by James073 (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Criticisms section doesn't have any of the most serious criticisms

I've just read this page for the first time, and...somehow I'm not surprised that the "Criticisms" section contains none of the main criticisms of Queer Theory. I have added a paragraph of proper criticisms - i.e. about the long association of queer theory with paedophilia - with links to historic quotes by Foucault and other major queer theorists, and modern critical quotes by Prof Michael Salter and Prof Alice Sullivan. I just hope that the reason none of this was already here is not because editors keep removing it... Fig (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Fig wright, I've reverted your addition. I don't have much time right now, but let's discuss the content here, and others should please chime in. My main question is due weight, and WP:TWITTER is also clearly relevant... — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahh. Imagine my shock. My suspicions were correct (again). This page has no real criticisms of queer theory in the criticisms section because it's defended by editors who don't want it criticised.

The Twitter quotes, which are both from globally significant academics (particularly Prof Michael Salter - a queer man and the leading expert on child sexual abuse) are obviously relevant and satisfy WP:TWITTER.

This is not undue weight, these criticisms are a small part of the whole article, and were conspicuous by their absence until I added them. Fig (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Your sources are questionable, when it comes to using The Times, the Rubin piece (what book is it even from?, as this is clearly a chapter), and two tweets. Also, Foucault isn't even a queer theorist, as far as I'm aware, so how is that article even relevant here? I would post about that on the talk page of Foucault, not here. Also, The Guardian and Vice articles seem to be undue weight on one scholar. I'm not entirely sure how the BBC article is relevant. In addition, I have to question whether the Bethany Lamont piece is undue weight. Furthermore, Critical Therapy Antidote is some therapy site... what does that have to do with philosophy or theory? As your attitude toward those who reject your edits as declaring that "this page has no real criticisms of queer theory in the criticisms section because it's defended by editors who don't want it criticised" is not helpful, and your claim that the criticisms you added are "a small part of the whole article" is incorrect because you added an ENTIRE section. Personally, I do not see the new section you created as warranted or helpful.

I have to agree with the below comments by Mathglot that "Twitter quotes should not be used here." Queer theory is a critical theory, so it only makes sense to have those in the criticism section be discussed in reliable secondary sources. I think users would benefit from there being more academic articles than non-academic ones, as the current section you added almost seems like it would be printed in the National Review or something, complaining about the "culture war" or some nonsense. That's one of my issues with the "Association with paedophilia" section you added. Furthermore, there would need to be more support for your claim about Gayle Rubin, have the tweets of Salter and Sullivan (which are cited badly and not in-line with existing guidelines anyway, meaning that someone else has to clean it up) cited in secondary and reliable source. The same with Derrick Jensen, a person who has been accused of transphobia himself (which should probably be mentioned if you are going to include anything from him), as it notes on his page.

In terms of criticism on this page, the "Academic criticism" sub-section you created cites five scholars: Adam Isaiah Green, Joshua Gamson (along with N. Denzin, and Y. Lincoln), Brent Pickett, Sabine Masson, and Bruno Perreau, so its not like there are no "proper criticisms". Personally, I think there should be ONE criticism section, not a division into a sub-section. There are undoubtedly other criticisms out there, but I'm not seeing how any of the content you added helps readers in the slightest. Historyday01 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Fig wright, I notice you've restored the content you added. Let's discuss here! Please be careful to avoid edit warring. — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed again, pending discussion. Twitter quotes should not be used here. If they are relevant and due, they will be picked up by secondary sources discussing the incredibly important Twitter discussion attracting millions of followers and being discussed in newspapers and other sources internationally; in which case, we will have the reliable, secondary sources we need, and can cite them; including even the primary tweets that started it all out. If they are not, then, well... then they are tweets. By all means, add a criticism section; just source it according to policy, and no one will object. Mathglot (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the new paragraph. If you don't like a single line in a new paragraph, edit that line - don't disingenuously delete the whole paragraph. And anyway, the Twitter quotes are by world-leading experts on the subject, about the subject - of course they are relevant to the subject. If you delete just the Twitter quotes, I won't revert that delete, but if you insist on disingenuously deleting the whole new paragraph due to objections about the Twitter line then I know you aren't acting in good faith. Fig (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Responded at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they are "world-leading experts on the subject" as you claim (is there a citation for that bold claim?). The inclusion of the quotes is undue weight. They should ONLY be used if picked up by reliable secondary sources. An online search for the tweet didn't bring up any results for the Slater tweet in ANY secondary publication (basically he is just posting it and putting his thoughts to the wind, I guess). The same is the case for Sullivan's tweet. Your comment "if you insist on disingenuously deleting the whole new paragraph due to objections about the Twitter line then I know you aren't acting in good faith" is not only unhelpful but undermines your entire push for adding this content. Why accuse others of not editing in good faith? That doesn't support positive discourse.Historyday01 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed the added material and sources provided. The only portion that is both cited to a reliable source and actually discusses pedophilia and queer theory is the Lamont article. Everything else uses unreliable sources or uses original research to tie the two together. For example, none of the sources on Andersson talk about queer theory. One source indicates the paper was categorized under queer studies, but that is different.--Trystan (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree. I still have to wonder if that article is given undue weight, as it is being used on its own. This is another case of someone adding content to an article which doesn't really help readers, in the slightest. Historyday01 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

For anyone's attention: A related discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Fig wright. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Association with paedophilia

Unambiguous WP:POINT behavior, collapsed as disruptive and unproductive Dronebogus (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay readers, if you've come to Wikipedia looking for objective NPOV analysis of Queer Theory, I'm afraid this page ain't it. Despite always being a very controversial field, the 'Criticisms' section is egregiously deficient - because this page is defenced by editors who don't want the most serious historic criticisms of queer theory to be read. Thus the page is strongly POV. As you've made it to this Talk page, congrats on being inquisitive; and here now is a more serious 'Criticisms' section of the kind that those editors don't want you to see: Fig (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Content copied from a recent version of the article

Association with paedophilia Since its earliest days, queer theory has been dogged by accusations that it is a vehicle for paedophile advocacy and attacks on safeguarding. Michel Foucault was an early and vigorous campaigner for the abolition of the age of consent, and along with critical theorists like Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Simone de Beauvoir and dozens of other French intellectuals repeatedly petitioned against the age of consent. After his death, stories were published of Foucault's trips to Tunisia to abuse young boys. In Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, queer theorist Gayle Rubin argued that paedophilia ("cross-generational activities") is just another sexuality and is wrongly oppressed. Michael Salter, Professor of Criminology at University of New South Wales and a world-renowned expert in child sexual exploitation (and a queer man), has said of queer theory: Universities have incubated self-consciously transgressive, anti-normative writing about children's "desires" and "sexual agency" for decades, incentivising young academics in particular to take more extreme positions to carve out their own "shocking" niche in the marketplace. We've reached a tipping point where those academics are now intersecting with child welfare and child protection issues, and it's an entirely predictable disaster. Child safeguarding is fundamentally about boundaries, queer theory is about the dissolution of boundaries. Alice Sullivan, Professor of Sociology at University College London, has said, "Queer theory is all about 'queering' normative boundaries. The association with paedophilia is a feature, not a bug." Karl Andersson, a queer theory PhD student at Manchester University, successfully published in the peer-reviewed journal Qualitative Research in 2022, a paper analysing his own masturbation to cartoons of underage boys. After widespread outrage, the paper with retracted and the police later investigated whether the work was criminal child pornography. Andersson has previously given an interview with Vice (magazine), about a magazine for "boy lovers" that he used to publish, arguing, "What is it anyways, to 'sexualise children' and what’s bad about it? It's not a real argument." . Andersson also previously edited a similar themed magazine called Destroyer Magazine. Dr Jacob Breslow a queer theorist at the London School of Economics Department of Gender Studies, was sacked from from the board of a childrens' charity after his pro-paedophile advocacy work came to light. In Can We Approach the Subject of Child Sexual Abuse Ethically in Academia? Towards a Queer Ethics of CSA Analysis in the Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, Dr Bethany Lamont considers "the failures of certain subsections of twentieth-century American and Western European critical theory in approaching the study of child sexual abuse with ethical integrity". She examines queer theory "in order to question and contextualize why academic endorsement of child sexual abuse acts has occurred." Dr Derrick Jensen, an American 'ecophilosopher', has repeatedly criticised the association of queer theory with paedophilia. References

Fig (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Soapbox: If the preamble is to be taken at anything adjacent face value, I suspect this talk section falls under unacceptable talk page behavior but for the sake of argument and pretending good faith: Aside from serious style issues, spelling errors, etc. this section would consist mostly of unrelated sources (including two twitter pages and the website Critical Therapy Antidote) assembled in the effort of creating a narrative that is hardly present in the source material. Editors who've had their morning coffee may recognize this as synthesis. These lines are citing the existence of queer theorists who have particular associations or worldviews on pedophilia, but not notable published sources stating that queer theory itself has been dogged by accusations of pedophile advocacy. If this were acceptable, the same logic would warrant adding an Association with p(a)edophilia section to any demographic with multiple convicted child abusers or pedophile advocates. Should we add such sections to White people? Black People? While we're generalizing groups based on a handful of examples from those groups, should we add sections to similar articles to describe their association with their stereotypes? Does this sound ridiculous yet? GabberFlasted (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that in several cases, the proposed text either invents or unduly emphasizes the connection of the individuals discussed to queer theory. Andersson is described as a "queer theory PhD student", but none of the sources about him even mention queer theory. He appears to have been a Japanese Studies student. Foucault died before queer theory was a thing. While his work was heavily influential on the subsequent development of queer theory, it was heavily influential on a dozen other areas as well (as were Sartre and Beauvoir). Breslow was a Gender Studies professor. His works apply queer theory among several others.

Of the proposed sources, the Lamont article alone is both relevant and reliable. It is worth considering for addition to the article in some form, subject to achieving consensus on the due weight concerns expressed in the above section. Lamont discusses academic defences of child sexual assault in certain subsections of queer theory, feminism, mid-twentieth-century philosophy, and sex-radical literature. She doesn't single out queer theory, nor paint the entirety of the fields she discusses with the same brush.--Trystan (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The above is basically WP:Synth since it's just looking backwards on one data point and then finding direct quotes from the primary literature to prove said point. Queer theorists say a lot of things, and this page would be massive if we tried to include every point all these various authors make. Deciding what does and does not get WP:WEIGHT is determined by third party sources that give an overview of these topics. If for instance, the New York Times were to come out with an article "Queer theory and pedophilia", then that absolutely would be a source to use in the article. A complicating factor is that Queer theory is a niche field, and often mainstream sources don't discuss it.

Correction: here I am, an idiot making claims without checking anything. The NYT did in fact cover Queer theory in 1998. 'Queer Theory' Is Entering The Literary Mainstream - NYT Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)