Talk:Stanley Fish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What about the vandalism?[edit]

What happen to this article which has been considered vandalism? I know that there is a lot of people who don't like Fish and his theories, but what can come of trying to deface a wiki artilce.

--chemica 07:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history. There was no vandalism. There were merely repeated attempts to correct a poorly written and misleading article.

By removing sourced material without ever actually phrasing a coherent objection. Which was vandalism prior to the objection being phrased. Now it's mere incompetence, which is not bannable, but still very much revertable. Phil Sandifer 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Stanley Fish and Deconstruction" in the article (as well as the Murray article link provided) really doesn't seem to provide any substantial information about Fish's interpretation of deconstruction or about Murray's counterpoint. It just seems like two vague remarks delivered entirely out of context, especially the Fish quote, which is lacking a citation even in the provided Murray article. I'm going to delete the section of the article, as well as the link to the Murray article, provide a link to a streaming audio file in which Fish is interviewed about deconstruction, and put the Murray link in the Murray wikipedia entry where it might have a better context.

Murray is best known for defending racism in the controversial book "The Bell Curve".

He did not actually defend racism in that book. In the book, Murray and Herrnstein argued that IQ exists; that it is heritable; and that some of the difference in mean IQ scores between the white European population of the United States and the African-American population (one full standard deviation of 15 points) is probably attributable to genetic factors. (FOR WHOM THE BELL CURVE TOLLS: A Prelude to an Upcoming Special Issue of Skeptic (Volume 3, #3)An Interview with the Author of The Bell Curve CHARLES MURRAY Interview by Frank Miele)If you had read the book (specifically the thirteenth chapter), you would know that nowhere in it does Murray defend racism.

This is the dictionary definition of racism.

I'm with you anonymous person. That's why I'm deleting this sentence. Actually, there's lots else wrong with it, too. It's POV to say that Murray is "best known" for that particular book anyway -- he was a pretty important public intellectual before it.

--Christofurio 23:42, May 19, 2004 (UTC)


Isn't Stanley Fish the guy who published Sokal's fake article in Social Text? Or is that someone else entirely?

I think you're thinking of Aronowitz.
Perhaps, but I think that Fish has to be considered a fairly important player in that whole kerfuffle. It was his journal that published the article, after all, and Fish who had some of the most vociferous defences of the decision to publish, along with some pokes at Sokal. RyanGrant 05:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

As requested by Mwanner, I'll note that certain sentences are copied verbatim or only slightly modified from the FIU link cited in the copyvio notice:

FIU text Wikipedia text
"Fish earned his Ph.D. ... from Yale University in 1962. He taught English at the University of California at Berkeley and Johns Hopkins University before becoming arts and sciences professor of English and professor of law at Duke University, where he taugh for 14 years in the 1980s and 90s." "Fish earned his Ph.D. from Yale University in 1962. He taught English at the University of California at Berkeley and Johns Hopkins University before becoming Arts and Sciences Professor of English and professor of law at Duke University from 1986 to 1998."
"Considered a leading scholar on English poet John Milton—author of “Paradise Lost”—Fish’s reputation was cemented by his book “How Milton Works”, published in 2001." "Considered a leading scholar of Milton, a reputation cemented by the book How Milton Works in 2001...."
"Fish is best known for his work on interpretive communities, which looks at how the interpretation of a text by a reader depends on the reader's acceptance of a common set of foundational assumptions or texts." "...Fish is best known for his work on interpretive communities, ... that studies how the interpretation of a text by a reader depends on the reader's ... acceptance of a common set of foundational assumptions or texts."

There may be more. I stopped there. --Flex 13:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It appears that FIU copied Wikipedia, not the other way around. The press release is dated June 29. The last major change to the page was June 11 and the text in fact goes back months further. I expect this sort of thing will become increasingly common as Wikipedia becomes more popular. AaronSw 15:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that is exactly what happened. I emailed FIU's office of media relations and asked them about the similarities. They responded:

I am responding your email to the Office of Media Relations regarding a possible copyright infringement of Wikipedia's entry for Florida International University Professor Stanley Fish.
Please allow me to express our sincere apology for not properly sourcing the material we used in the press release announcing his hiring. We will fix the problem immediately by amending the press release in our archive database.

--Flex 12:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Fish and Legal Theory[edit]

I think something should be put in about Fish's writings on jurisprudence. It can't be said that he has a particularly strong reputation in the field, but he has been published on legal theory and, if only because of his reputation as an English scholar, his efforts produced a number of responses from such distinguished jurists as Ronald Dworkin and Richard Posner User: JRJW 19 December 2005

David Lodge and Fish[edit]

If we are going to allow a connection here -- which I personally am leaning against doing -- then we need to have a citation to the article and change the wording. Fish as an inspiration for Morris Zapp, while interesting I suppose, is a rumor. To say "Fish is probably the inspiration...", appears random and does not serve any purpose so far as the rest of the article is concerned. If we are to allow it to stay, it needs to be expanded and even then it needs to be cited and proven relevant to the rest of the article. Perhaps it should be moved to a 'trivia' subheading. Or it could be in a subheading that relates Fish to contemporaries and/or critics -- although I don't really think this is necessarily a great idea either. For the moment, I am removing it under the premise of WP:NOT, subheading 1.8.

Ryecatcher773 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and Law[edit]

How did this dude get to be a law professor? Unless I'm missing something, it isn't covered in the article. Lou Sander 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Professor Fish's academic resume is listed in it's abridged entirety (which is to say all the major things are covered). What you are looking for is there, it is mentioned under the heading of Academic Career. If you are looking for something more comprehensive, such as the road map from high school to Professor of Law at Duke, well, it isn't written down anywhere that I've seen. I never bothered asking him about it, but so far as I am aware, one doesn't need have to have a degree in Law in order to teach it -- if that is what you are asking. Professor Fish's main areas of focus are Milton, First Amendment Law, and Deconstruction Theory (see Jacques Derrida). Qualifications for teaching at the university level typically have more to do with an area of expertise as it has been demonstrated in practice (publications, awards, etc) than it does with what ones diploma says. Ryecatcher773 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that he was a law professor at Duke. But I can't see anything at all that would explain how and why an English teacher would become a law professor, or someone whose "main area of interest" is First Amendment Law. Why not a surgeon? Or a volleyball theorist? Did he get a traffic ticket, go to court, and decided he loved the law? Surely it wasn't just an opening he applied for, was it? One would hope that an encyclopedia might shine a little light on unusual aspects of its subjects' careers. Lou Sander 02:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I stated, there is nothing in print to substantiate anything theories or speculations on his move. However, it is hardly a big jump from English to Law. English curricula, at the university level anyway, is not about writing book reports, it's about critical analysis. Studying law is, in effect, not much different in theory. Part of the reason English is one of the majors considered ideal for pre-Law is this critically analytical approach. English is also a name applied to a major that could also be called 'Rhetoric', which is what lawyers (or Rhetoricians as they were called) engaged in during the classical Greek period -- read your Aristotle and Plato, or just ask an English professor. He or she will back my claim on this (incidentally, it isn't just my claim... I'm taking it from the overview section on English as a Major in the UIC catalog... and I'm sure they weren't the first to come up with it either) Cheers! Ryecatcher773 03:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medievalist?[edit]

John Skelton (1460-1529) doesn't really count as a Mediaval author. If this is the extent of his work on early English literature, it would be a good idea to remove this characterization.

Professor Fish isn't a medievalist, but he did start out as one. You are correct, the book on Skelton's poetry isn't necessarily a qualification of his medievalist roots, and I don't see the relation between the two sentences. I think what the contributor was alluding to is that Fish talks about his progression (or perhaps, to not offend medievalists it is better to say 'his change in course') into later periods. I have not personally read this particular work, so I cannot say. Wherever he actually embarked on his academic journey is irrelevant other than as a brief biographical mention' Fish's areas of concentration are mainly Milton, Literary Theory, and First Amendment Law. Ryecatcher773 02:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook group[edit]

Not sure if this is allowed here, but if any Fish enthusiasts watch this page and also use facebook, I've just created the first Fish fanclub there. --Ryan Heuser 07:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much prohibited as irrelevant, but have fun. I would be wary, however, of any intellectual whose influence is of such a nature that people who like his work consider themselves as "fans". Fandom is a pretty irrational affair. Lexo (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Chicago[edit]

This page does not need or warrant a template for WP Chicago. Fish is neither a native Chicagoan nor even a resident of the City of Chicago. He was employed here, yes. But that is the extent of his connection to the city, and he is no longer employed by UIC, nor has he been for a couple of years now (I was in his final class at UIC in Spring of 2005, he left Chicago in July of that year for FIU). Lastly, the article itself only mentions Chicago in passing, and is not otherwise directly related to Chicago in any way. I have removed the template accordingly. Ryecatcher773 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bot puts the banner on pages that have appropriate categories, as in this case; UIC faculty. However, he was more than just employed, he was, from 1999 to 2004, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at UIC, where he was paid $230,000 a year, more than the Governor of Illinois. This got him a certain notoriety. Anyway, what harm does it do to have more eyes on the page? Speciate 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you say he wasn't a resident of Chicago, what did he do, commute in from another state or something? Speciate 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added more on his time in Chicago. Speciate 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never said he didn't live here. I said he no longer lives here and he isn't from here... and furthermore he wasn't here that long. Lots of famous people have resided in Chicago who have come and gone, and none of them warrant a WP Chicago tag either. What I said was he is not a resident of Chicago -- yes, he lived here briefly but he has now gone. We aren't talking about Dennis Farina or Harrison Ford here.

I am also well aware of his position and notoriety/fame, as I was a tuition paying member of the UIC College of LAS during his tenure here, and I have had the man both as a professor and as an advisor for an independent study course I did on rhetoric with him. But his salary was hardly a major news story anywhere outside of academic circles. It wasn't front page news in the Trib.

The point is, the article is not about Chicago, or a famous Chicagoan. It is about a man who is a native of another state, who also now resides in another state he isn't from (Florida), whose only attachment to Chicago was a brief stint in a long and illustrious career. He accomplished the majority of his academic work at Duke, Berkley and Johns Hopkins -- where he also earned a notorious reputation and ... yet I don't any tags for WP San Fransisco, or WP Maryland, or WP North Carolina on here. Ryecatcher773 21:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any article with at category listed at WP:CHIBOTCATS will get tagged by the bot that checks these cats twice a week for new articles for WP:CHICAGO. If the category is important enough to the article to belong there our project would like to follow the article. As I read the current WP:LEAD it says "He is . . . dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago" Thus, he has a notable lifelong relationship with a Chicago educational institution. Unless you feel it would harm the talk page to have a Chicago banner there I would appreciate it if you would leave it there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia created these talk pages for the purpose of improving articles. The various Project banners function as categories, and aid in the tracking of articles related to various subjects. All that is required is that the article is of interest to a WikiProject. There was a lengthy debate over a LGBT studies banner on the Larry Craig talk page, which was resolved by having the banner remain. Speciate 00:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that I have even changed the priority tag on this article to mid because he served in a prominent role as a Chicagoan. He was already a preeminent scholar in his field when he was affiliated with the local institution and influenced many Chicagoans in his prominent role. He is a part of the Chicago project without a doubt. See WP:CHIPRIORITY for an explanation of how our project evaluates the importance of articles to our project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

Please review the guidelines on wikipedia criticism here[1], where you'll learn that a "criticism" section, of course, does not require or even suggest that there should be a corresponding section of "praise" in order to meet the standard of NPOV.

You'll also learn that "In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged." Criticism sections are made until the criticism can be dispersed throughout the article. Right now, these criticisms are difficult to incorporate. A good example that looks like Fish's can be found here [2]. Hope this is helpful. Cheers. --216.164.61.173 (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this article is in bad shape. I haven't looked at it in years but it seems to me it used to be a lot better. What we have now is a massive 'criticism' section of which a large portion is ad hominem, and the rest lacks context because there is no explaination of what Fish claims to be all about. I suspect this may be because nobody who has contributed to this article in its present state understands Fish. It seems like much of the criticism is from so-called authorities who don't even address Fish's theories, but in fact compare him unfavorably to other people's theories (for example, pointing out that Fish's brand of criticism fails to qualify as 'dialectic' since it doesn't progress to synthesis is simply the result of holding Fish to the standards of Hegel. Why should Fish be held to the standards of Hegel? Did he ever claim to be Hegellian in some way? The article doesn't give any indiction of what he is at all, Hegellian or otherwise! It's pretty useless. But then, isn't a lot of Wikipedia, these days? Wikipedia confounding itself over time all while its contributors believie they are improving it is probably an irony Fish would appreciate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.66.20 (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I do know that he is a complete and utterly pointless idiot.

Inappropriate tone[edit]

"As both a prominently public intellect and a hard man to pin down politically, Fish has spent considerable time in various public arenas vigorously debunking pieties of both the left and the right — sometimes in the same sentence."

This reads like something from a magazine feature, not like something from an encylopedia article. (I assume that the writer meant "intellectual" rather than "intellect" - an intellectual talks for a living, but the intellect is a rather nebulous mental faculty.) This article is in general not very good; some bits of it strike me as being wildly pro-Fish, other bits seem to be very anti-Fish. I believe that the people least qualified to write a wikipedia article about a thinker are those who agree wholeheartedly with the thinker in question, but the reverse is also true; I do not myself think that Fish's work is non-trivial, so I don't care enough to ensure that an article about him is kept in good order. Lexo (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But apparently you do care enough to write a lengthy paragraph prefacing your non-caring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.78.126 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's gone, and obviously its tone called for its removal. I should have liked to add subheadings to the Criticism §:

Criticism of his work[edit]

Fatalism[edit]

Hollowness[edit]

Irrelevance[edit]

Sophistry[edit]

Sloppy Reasoning[edit]

But Camille Paglia's "totalitarian tinkerbell" pretty much does it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW that section uses the non-word "homogenous." It seems to be a paraphrase, as I didn't find it in the cited text. If the word belongs, it should be "homogeneous." Danchall (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Fish on philosophy[edit]

I'm wondering whether we can work this recent quote from Professor Fish into the article. I think it's pretty important? Mardiste (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Philosophy is fun; it can be a good mental workout; its formulations sometimes display an aesthetically pleasing elegance. I’m just denying to philosophy one of the claims made for it - that its conclusions dictate or generate non-philosophical behavior."


That douche does need a mental workout because he is a total stranger to a coherent argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.185.121 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what are his actual views?[edit]

Judging from this article, Stanley Fish is apparently a fairly prominent intellectual and important figure, who has also been 'the target of wide-ranging criticism'. But the article devotes more space to that criticism than his views, which are presumably what he is criticised for. There's only one poorly-sourced paragraph about his literary theory, and a brief one on university politics which links to a single New York Times piece by him. If he really is prominent enough to attract this much criticism, it should be possible to say more about the work that makes him famous in the first place. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, as a dyed-in-the-wool anti-foundationalist his lack of a defined viewpoint is largely what makes him so prominent: he doesn't do content (meaning opinions/views are exactly what he dismisses as irrelevant when one is speaking on theory -- whetehr it's prose, poetry or law). If you've ever had him as a professor or read anything by him (a good starting point would be: There's No Such Thing As Free Speech, and it's a Good Thing, Too) you'd see what I mean. Or, you could check out his NY Times blog (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/stanley-fish/) if you don't want to expend the energy and/or funds going to the bookstore.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Max the Plumber and dealing with personal myth[edit]

It's POV to state that Fish's father was merely a "plumber". By the time Stanley was in high school the family controlled a major corporation. His father was a very wealthy man when Stanley was growing up. I agree that the statement should not insinuate that his father's family was wealthy when he immigrated--however, one needs to tread very carefully when categorizing migrants (that is: "most immigrants aren't [insert adjective about economic status here]) as many wealthy people--particularly Jews--migrated from Poland and elsewhere in Europe the 20s. Rather than allowing a word that is charged with meaning (such as: "plumber") to control the narrative of Fish's early life, these concepts need better context.Macroscope7 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His father was a plumber, and while the word to you is 'charged with meaning', here's a newsflash: it is actually a profession... and whatever you want to argue (title, income bracket, social status), that is what his father was by trade. I agree, the "merely" part certainly would be POV -- had that word ('merely') been used in the paragraph -- except that it wasn't part of the sentence... that is something you're interpreting it as. Stanley Fish made his bones in contributions to the theory of reader-response criticism, and what you're implying is exactly your own interpretation of the text, you can't force that on another reader.
Fish's father was an under-educated man who had immigrated from Poland in his youth and eventually found success his profession in the US (the proverbial 'American Dream'). However, if you read the article that you're citing for comprehension rather than a quote, you'd have seen that Max Fish had his first relatively big plumbing contract ($60,000... remodeling the bathrooms and heating system of a synagogue) in 1948 -- when Stanley was roughly 10 years old. Then follows, One thing led to another, and in the next 20 years he became one of the largest (if not the largest) plumbing and heating contractors in three states — Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut. -- over the next 20 years, not overnight. Stanley Fish received his BA from Penn in 1959. His father was not a 'very wealthy man' until sometime after Fish was (at the very least) a teenager preparing to leave home. What you're saying in the article is chronologically misleading and -- particularly now that you've informed me more of your own point of view -- reeks of an agenda.
What's remarkable about your argument is your selectivity in what you want to include in your additions to the article -- while you quote the NYT OpEd piece by Stanley to make your case in the WP article that Max Fish was wealthy, you completely omitted mentioning the part that the son of a house painter toiled as a laborer/apprentice/journeyman before finally finding success. You're presenting 'facts' in a way as to make a misleading statement, and quite frankly, I find your wording "particularly Jews" to have an anti-semitic lean. The man immigrated here and worked extremely hard so that his kids would have it better than he did growing up -- folks use to call that 'the American way'.
Bottom line is that the article is about Stanley Fish, not his father. Mentioning that he was a plumber is sufficient -- his household income is irrelevant to the purposes of the article -- especially given the ambiguity as to when exactly Max Fish became as wealthy as he eventually was. I don't know what axe you have to grind with academics or Jews (I've seen some of your other edits in your short history here on Wikipeida) but in this case it is you who are attempting to craft a 'myth'. I had Professor Fish as an instructor at UIC, and I can see that you are trying to use his methods in making your argument, but going by your methods of argumentation I don't think you're fully grasping them. Stanley Fish, as an academic, is/was never one to stir up pots and/or use rhetoric to lead a reader to conclusions, and he most certainly frowned upon that sort of writing in his peers and students.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His father was not a 'very wealthy man' until sometime after Fish was (at the very least) a teenager preparing to leave home.
In the course of becoming the most wealthy in three states, he would have been the most wealthy one state; before that, one city. Each case (be in one state or city) means he was doing very well- which is to say, wealthy. So, yes, when Stanley was a teenager and even when he was ten, his family was doing well. Your mention of the timeline from the NYT reiterates that point – thanks for quoting it here.
$60,000 in 1948 after inflation is the equivalent of over a half million dollars today. Again, as you note, Stanley was 10 years old at that time. (That Fish says this was a “relatively small” -- I’m not sure what to make of it. How much is a large amount?) It is about 10 times the annual salary of a plumber. At any rate, his father was not doing the plumbing in three states or even 500,000+ worth of plumbing on one project in 1948 himself. He managed contractors who did the work. He was a CEO.
What you're saying in the article and here is chronologically misleading and -- particularly now that you've informed me more of your own point of view -- reeks of an agenda to support the idea that this page should be hagiographic. What's remarkable about your argument is your selectivity in what you want to include in your version of the article.
you completely omitted mentioning the part that the son of a house painter toiled as a laborer/apprentice/journeyman before finally finding success.I do not dispute that this section could be better nuanced. You might add a clause that he was “first a plumber” before he became a CEO. (I added that clause to my previous edit.)
The way you've lotted all immigrants together is inaccurate. My mother is Jewish, if you’re interested (though we don’t celebrate much) and emigrated (though not to the US) at the same time as the Fish family, from the same place, and it was not for economic reasons. And you might bear in mind that in the midst of much anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe in the last century, many who migrated (like the Chomsky and Einstein and (Jacob) Schiff families, and possibly the Fish-s) were well off before their move. The initiative was not always economic -- and this has been especially true for repressed communities, like Polish Jews in the 20th century.Macroscope7 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. His father was NOT the most wealthy man in three states -- you have completely misread the OpEd piece Fish wrote on his father if you got that out of it -- his father (quote): eventually became one of the largest (if not the largest) plumbing and heating contractors in three states (emphasis is mine). You're conflating the two.

2. Being Jewish on your mom's side while making one Jewish by lineage, doesn't prevent one from being anti-Semitic and is irrelevant to your statement. I've not 'lotted all immigrants together' ( -- you again haven't really read what was written -- I wrote 'most' and it was in the edit summary box. Immigrants are overwhelmingly not rich when they arrive -- a class on US History during the mid-late 19th century all the way up to the present day will. Come on over to Chicago and I'll give you a guided tour of the Mexican neighborhoods on my side of town... or the massive Chinese immigrant population of my neighborhood (which use to be largely poor Irish, Italian and Lithuanian immigrants before that) and you can get a general idea that it doesn't require a PhD to make the call that MOST (not all) immigrants aren't rich when they come to the US.

3. Regarding: many who migrated (like the Chomsky and Einstein and (Jacob) Schiff families, and possibly the Fish-s) were well off before their move... Max came in and toiled as plumber and built his own empire. People who immigrate to the US in the 1920's who are from well off families don't typically get jobs as laborers.. and you apparently missed the part that his father, in Poland, was a house painter. You really should learn to read for context.

4. Fish's father is not the subject of the article. If you want to write a comprehensive article on Max Fish, go do it. To say that his father was a plumber (fact) and that he came here poor (fact) and that his priority after becoming a father was to make sure his son received a quality education (fact) is sufficient to mention in a summary on the early life of one of the nation's preeminent academics and modern literary philosophers. If you have an axe to grind, go grind it somewhere else. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The immigration issue here is moot as is your strange timeline and bizarre remarks about Anti-Semitism. That you assume an individual's economic circumstance due to immigrant status is unfortunate, though it doesn't hurt your edits. And, no, the article doesn't specify if his father was a painter in Poland or just in Rhode Island. Many migrants are not able to practice their professions in the new place and for that take working-class positions. I know I don't have to point that out as you are obviously very expert on things immigration.
What was his father's profession? A plumber and the manager of a corporation. Omitting one or the other is POV.Macroscope7 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Max Fish was a Tal-Mudic Scholar in Poland before emigrating in 1923" (Frank Northen Magill, Critical Survey of Literary Theory, 489).

The immigration issue and timeline is neither bizarre nor moot. Yesterday you had a 15 year old son of a house painter being a wealthy immigrant. Forget for a second that I actually had Professor Fish as a teacher at UIC and had a few long conversations with the man about things that included talk about family history and realize that your assertions are bizarre in and of themselves -- they have no bearing on Fish's work. You completely misread the OpEd pice he wrote about his father -- Stanley says explicitly this:

My father’s relationship with his uncle was always strained, and after a stint in the naval shipyards as a steamfitter in World War II, he and another plumber struck off on their own, fixing toilets and unclogging drains for other lower middle class householders. [Timeframe... WWII was over by 1945, and Stanley (b. 1938) was already in the picture] Fish continues to mention: One thing led to another, and in the next 20 years he became one of the largest (if not the largest) plumbing and heating contractors in three states — Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The next 20 years is vague but also shows that his father wasn't the wealthy power-broker he would become later. The point is that his father's wealth had no bearing on Fish as a scholar or as a mainstay in the academic world of literary criticism -- you're adding information that sounds skewed towards an agenda and it doesn't belong in the article. Power and influence being prime arguments in anti-semitic rhetoric, paired with your comments on his father being a Talmudic scholar (most Jewish kids in Poland during the Russian Imperial influence over that region in the late 19th-early 20th century -- which preceded the eventual rise of Naziism in Germany -- attended Jewish religious schools (yeshivot ) if they were to be educated at all)makes me wonder even more about your angle. You already have an edit history that includes a mention of Alan Dershowitz's views on Israel. You do the math. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Dershowitz supports Israel is news to you, like a great deal of the other extraneous stuff here, is irrelevant to the elder Fish's profession. The emotional investment you may have and whatever conversations you've had, don't change that his father was a plumber and businessman. When he became a multimillionare, as you note, is not the focus. His profession is the focus. (This is irrelevant, too, but to answer this strange timeline you pose: The family moved from the working class section of Providence to the affluent neighborhood (next to Brown) before Stanley was in high school. When his father became wealthy and how you define "wealthy" is of little relevance. Stanley most certainly did grow up in a well-off home, certainly one that was above average in PVD much of his youth. But again, that doesn't matter.) Max Fish was the head of a company that did/does everything for public buildings, including design and build them, and so this "plumber" idea, while romantic and sweet, just isn't accurate.Macroscope7 (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My only investment in the article in this case -- besides that Stanley Fish is someone I've had personal contact with as a teacher -- is that I find your motives suspect. His wealth is not a focus because it is irrelevant to the subject of the article (Stanley Fish). Like I said, you want to write an article on Max Fish, with your comprehensive list of sources and whatnot, go ahead. I even put 'contractor' in the paragraph. But everything else is fluff that doesn't belong in the article. Max Fish's wealth -- whenever he actually became rich -- has nothing to do with his son's prominence in academia (which is why he has an article on WP in the first place).Ryecatcher773 (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for these remarks here. I'll mull this over. The Norton Anthology describes Max as the founder of a major firm. Something along those lines might go in along with plumber, as "plumber" and "contractor" are almost interchangeable.Macroscope7 (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • My opinion was solicited on my talk page. I presume this is due to the hat that I sometimes wear as the Director of WP:CHICAGO. I would suggest that this not be viewed as if there is a puzzle for which we seek pieces. I.e., don't look at this as if you are filling in Father's name was X and Father's occupation was Y. Rather what is germane here is to add breadth to Fish' article by providing detail that can give us insight into Fish. In many cases, when you say someone's father was an immigrant plumber, that is sufficient for the reader to understand Fish' background. In this case, saying his father was a plumber misleads the reader a bit. His father is not the type of guy Sarah Palin wants you to think about as the perverbial Joe the Plumber. This guy is a plumbing magnate of sorts. Saying his father was a plumber does not teach the reader what they can learn about Fish by adding information about his father. Instead it misleads the reader. Provide sufficient detail for the reader to get understanding of his background.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not agree. The article is on the son. Information pertinent to the son should be included. The father supported the family by means of being a plumber. Sources are telling us that the father wanted the son to get a good education. Sources are not telling us that the father wanted wealth for the son—not in childhood and not in adulthood. Yes, sources are telling us that the father expanded the plumbing business to bring greater wealth to himself. But this took place in years that were probably beyond the son's formative years. Sources do not imply that the father's increased earnings had bearing on the son's accomplishments or the field of endeavor in which the son chose to work. Bus stop (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this took place in years that were probably beyond the son's formative years. That's not quite right. When the child was 10 years old, the father was managing contracts, one of which was worth over a half million dollars (adjusted for inflation). These boons allowed the family to move from a lower-class part of Providence to the affluent section, right next to Brown U, before Stanley was in high school. This shift from plumber to industry magnate was very important, and in his interview with the Minnesota Review, Stanley talks about architects who worked for his father hanging around the house while he was growing up. All of that relates to his father's position as a business owner, not a plumber (though, yes, that he was a plumber is also relevant).Macroscope7 (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stanley Fish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Fish-James David Barber affair[edit]

Probably, the article should mention this case, as it was pretty big thing in the early 90's - see Wall Street Journal (13 November 1990), New Republic (18 February 1991) Tovarischivanov (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Fish&oldid=1207237338"