Talk:Cathy Caruth

Possible AI use

Flagged for possible AI usage, details: article expansions starting 2026; note WP:AISIGNS, most noticeably markdown, but also superficial analyses, etc Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Definately reads like LLM. Masterhatch (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

What’s the RfC question? What do you propose to do? Have you already reverted the suspected LLM text? Seems lime a lack of RFCBEFORE (summoned by bot) Dw31415 (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

While the expansions from earlier this year are large, the analysis of the critiques by Ruth Leys and Dominick LaCapra is highly specific, rigorous, and properly cited. To me, it doesn't read like the superficial, generalized text typical of an LLM.

The formatting looks like standard wiki-markup rather than a raw markdown dump.

Unless there are specific factual errors or clear evidence of hallucination under WP:AISIGNS, I propose the maintenance banner be removed. Enakpat18 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

GPT evaluation of your comment:

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Evaluation: This could have been written by either a human or an LLM. There is no strong evidence of AI authorship based on the text alone.

Phrases that have a somewhat LLM-like tone:

• “highly specific, rigorous, and properly cited” — a polished, generic evaluative triad.
• “the superficial, generalized text typical of an LLM” — broad characterization rather than a concrete observation.
• “Unless there are specific factual errors or clear evidence of hallucination under WP:AISIGNS” — reads like a neatly framed conditional statement, though it’s also consistent with policy-based Wikipedia discussion.

Overall, the comment is concise, contextual, and grounded in Wikipedia norms. None of the wording is distinctive enough to support an inference that it was generated by an LLM.

Dw31415 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

"Overall, the comment is concise, contextual, and grounded in Wikipedia norms. None of the wording is distinctive enough to support an inference that it was generated by an LLM."

Agreed. In fact, I believe this is true of Cathy Caruth's article on the whole. Therefore, I propose the maintenance banner be removed. Enakpat18 (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you ping User:Gnomingstuff as he was the one who put the tag there and he should have a chance to defend his position. (Maybe this article isn't on his watchlist so he might not know what is being said) Masterhatch (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I already discussed with the user that they violated WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS by slapping a maintenance tag on the entire article without specifying what they believe is LLM-generated. Enakpat18 (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I already specified it. For your reading pleasure, here it is again: article expansions starting 2026; note WP:AISIGNS, most noticeably markdown, but also superficial analyses, etc.

Do not ping me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you the AI Police? Does someone pay you for your vigilantism? Enakpat18 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Enakpat18You're the one who made the additions, why don't you share with the class whether you used AI or not? You do not need to ask ChatGPT whether you used AI, unless you perhaps have critical amnesia and do not recall the edits that you, yourself, made.

In particular, how did markdown formatting get into only one of your edits, and not the rest? Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know what you are referring to. Enakpat18 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

For the record, i do not support the removal of the tag. Phrasing like "It has been said that one of Caruth’s most seminal achievements was shifting the foundation of psychoanalytic history from a male-dominated "father-son" model to a female-centered "mother-daughter" dynamic. By creating a space for female voices to articulate trauma and memory, she has been credited with disrupting a traditional record that had effectively erased women" reeks of LLM. Masterhatch (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

In my view, the comment is concise, contextual, and grounded in Wikipedia norms. None of the wording is distinctive enough to support an inference that it was generated by an LLM. Enakpat18 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesnt matter how "concise, contextual, and grounded" it is, if it is written by LLM, it is not allowed. Masterhatch (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It appears you are another one who is unfamiliar with WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. I won't answer the questions b/c you are assuming bad faith. I already said that none of the wording is distinctive enough to support an inference that it was generated by an LLM. Enakpat18 (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I showed you a paragraph written by LLM and you didnt deny that. Instead, you told me it was "concise, contextual, and grounded" and then you accused me of not acting in good faith. Sorry, but we gotta keep LLM off wikipedia. Period. Full stop. Masterhatch (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The real issue is that banners shouldn't be used as a blunt instrument to flag an entire article based on a subjective vibe about the prose style.

When you say, "I showed you a paragraph written by LLM," you are assuming bad faith. I won't engage with accusations of bad faith per WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. Enakpat18 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Also for the record, I do not support removal of the tag either. This is obvious generated text. ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cathy Caruth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Enakpat18 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chao Garden (talk · contribs) 18:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Enakpat18: unfortunately this article nomination is a quick fail because it is tagged with an LLM maintenance tag. Multiple editors on the talk page and AI noticeboard are saying that the article appears to have been generated with an LLM (see: Talk:Cathy_Caruth#Possible AI use), and they have cited several examples of WP:AISIGNS. Therefore, this article is a long way from meeting GA criteria. Before this article is nominated again, sources will need to be verified to ensure that the LLM did not hallucinate information. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.