Talk:Nancy Fraser

Untitled

The research section is vague and contains language unintelligible to people outside of critical theory. The second paragraph is heavily NPOV; it casts Fraser as ultra-reasonable without attributing that position to an external source. Instead, the article buttresses Fraser's credibility with a few sentences of accolades.

The article should be written so as to introduce Fraser's notable research, in a way that is legible to the uninitiated. I would do it if I could. Acone (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

New Updates Coming

Hi all,

I am Nancy Fraser's current assistant, and she has tasked me with updating this page. I will be using sources directly from her. I will cite accordingly.

- Nancy's Assistant Assistant-to-Nancy (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I am now followed up on this comment. I am Nancy's assistant. This is a declaration of my affiliation with this wikipedia page’s subject. I am not affiliated with any prior editor. My intention is not to edit Fraser's page directly but rather to work through third-party neutral editors.

I propose three updates to this page in hopes that these are sufficient updating Fraser's page.

First suggestion:

- The opening summary is not quite accurate; her work on identity is not really read as much these days as her scholarship on redistribution, recognition, and the theory of justice. For the last decade, Fraser has worked on the relation of capitalism to racial oppression, social reproduction, ecological crisis, and the rise of authoritarian populism.

- The opening summary could also be improved by listening her most recent accolades, including: In 2026 she will receive Andorka Rudolf Medal for Social Sciences (Budapest), the Ester Boserup Prize(Copenhagen), and the Fair Saturday Foundation Award (Bilbao), as well as the Omnis Scientia Omne Ius, Faculty of Law, National Autonmous University of Mexico, 2026, which was just awarded.

I would also suggest removing "Personal" section entirely.

Thank you to everyone who can help with this. Assistant-to-Nancy (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Spookyaki Is this a project you might be interested in helping me with? Assistant-to-Nancy (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not necessarily opposed, and I appreciate you reaching out and declaring your affiliation. As far as the opening summary (we generally call that the lead), that's supposed to be based on the body, so we would want corresponding evidence in the body that supports any claim in the lead. As such, we would probably need to rewrite the Research and possibly Books sections. We could use Fraser's own books for some of this, but for claims about reception, we'd need secondary sources such as book reviews and book/journal articles that discuss Fraser's work. If it helps, our goal would be to avoid running afoul of Wikipedia's original research policy.

In terms of the prizes, we'd again need secondary, reliable sources saying that she won those awards. Sources that are considered reliable on the perennial list would be best, but other sources may be acceptable as well as long as they're not considered unreliable. Actually, many of the current awards are also missing citations, so we would need to find sources for those as well.

I don't see a "Personal" section at all, unless you mean the "Early life and education" section. In my view, this needs to be expanded, not reduced. More biographical info would be nice.

I'm currently working on rewriting the article for Vida Dutton Scudder, so it'll be a bit before I can devote my full attention to this article. However, if you're willing to recommend sources (you can do that either in the refideas template above or by replying to this post), I can see what I can do once I'm done with that. Spookyaki (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense! I, of course, am happy to supply what is needed to ensure we meet all of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Yes, my thinking, as requested by Nancy, is to update all elements of the page, if that is possible. The source list is helpful, and I will use it to guide my collection! Claims about reception I can certainly find—are academic journals appropriate? I assume these would fall under an "obviously reliable source"? Everything that Nancy wants to add, re: awards, are documented, and I will also of supply references.

Apologies—yes, I did mean "Early Life and Education." I even have a revised draft for that section. Per Wikipedia's rules, am I allowed to offer suggested edits here, for you (or anyone else) to take up? Or just sources? I want to make sure I am respecting Wikipedia's rules.

No problem at all! I understand editing these pages can be more of a marathon than a sprint, and I am happy to help however I can, while respecting the rules.

I will start collecting sources for integration now. Thank you so much for your advice and assistance. Good luck with Dutton Scudder's page—I had not heard of her, but she sounds very interesting. Assistant-to-Nancy (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Academic journals are ideal, I would say, yes. And yes, generally, if you have a COI, you would request an edit and someone else would approve it (or make it themself). So for example, if you provided the revised draft here, I (or another editor) could look it over, suggest any changes, and add it to the page once it looked ready for publication.

Again, greatly appreciate your willingness to collaborate. Have a lovely day! Spookyaki (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)