Talk:Andrea Dworkin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Credibility and Dworkin's autobiographical statements

Is there any reason to believe Andrea Dworkin's account of her own life? Is there independent confirmation of her having "bled for days", worked as a prostitute, or all the other dramatic things that she reports have happened to her. She seems to have been singularly unlucky. I might add that there is nothing in what I have read of her writing that implies common sense or truthfulness. She made no impression on the tv show "Politically Correct," beyond being almost morbidly obeseSeminumerical 00:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As with anyone else's autobiographical statements, there is a presumption in favor of taking her at her word unless there is some specific reason not to believe what she tells you. If you have specific, documented reason for raising doubts then feel free to qualify her statements about her own life in light of those reasons; but barring that, it's unclear what grounds you would have except for the tendentious claim that you are a more trustworthy authority on what happened to Andrea Dworkin than Andrea Dworkin is.

As for her weight, it obviously has nothing at all to do with anything at all pertaining to the article.

Radgeek 01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was struck, at the time when she was on the ascendant, by the thought that although the individual things that "happened" to her were plausible enough, taken as a whole they formed an implausible pattern. The prostitution is, by itself plausible. Many women have turned to prostitution (.02% of women?) of necessity (to support children for instance) or because they were coerced or because they wanted to because it interested them (the last do exist). But one wonders why an educated woman would do that rather than, say, clean carpets for a year until she was back on her feet, or why she didn't go to the embassy and ask for help in getting home (I chose those two examples because I have done both). Well maybe she was coerced or unable to think clearly or terribly desperate at the time. Or maybe it never happened or only happened once. I have met maybe five pathological liars in 40 years (two of them women) and I can't help but notice, as Dworkin's life drama unfolded, how she reminded me of them. Terrible attention getting trauma, no witnesses who can come forward, drama that is trendy at the time (she wasn't mesmerized, or attacked by a phrenologist, nor was she seduced online). I see profit of a sort: dining out on publications and lectures. Fading from the public eye? New terrible attention getting drama. I also can't help but notice that the terrible North American epidemic of rape and incest just stopped, like turning off a tap, as even the press came to grasp that the epidemic was a fabrication by some smart/stupid academics of questionable femininity (note that the epidemic was a fabrication, not the reality that these things occur and I do not denigrate those of questionable femininity as people, only those that publish elaborately nonsensical theories).

As for her weight, well that amount of obesity can happen for medical reasons, but it can also happen because of greed, drink, pills, or indolence. That forming first impressions about someone's character based on their physiognomy has gone out of fashion because it is unfair doesn't mean that it isn't a useful skill widely used by humans. Anyway, I was just inquiring as to whether anyone out there in cyber space has any evidence to back up her assertions. My life experience, and that of most mainstream people, says she was either a liar or a schlamozel. I'm betting on the former.

yes yes I know I am a troll and I need a spellchecker. And therefore you don't have to reply. Seminumerical 14:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Very important points, Seminumerical. Why should we believe ANY of her hyperdramatic allegations? She was mentally ill, end of story. Doovinator 04:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Setting aside that the epidemic was 1)real, 2)global, and 3)ongoing, I have to echo Radgeek here: if you want to put anything along the lines of "She was mentally ill, end of story" in the article, you need more reason than that you just don't want to believe her. The Literate Engineer 16:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Setting aside that the epidemic was a fat lie, I see no reason to belive the fat liar. I have no intention of wasting my time debating about a fat liar, so I won't. Doovinator 00:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The epidemic was not real. You can expect that the rate of sexual crimes to be approximately constant, and low (of course never low enough), over time within any civilisation. All human cultures have an instinctive hatred of rape (if you bore me enough I can find citations). There are subcultures that practice rape (the Bloods' initiation ritual for example), and there is rape between "civilizations" during war: Darfour or the violence against Vietnamese woman during that war are not exceptions to the within "civilizations" thing. Here the large city I come from, back in the mid 90's the judicial system disbanded the prosecution team that was created specifically to deal with sex crimes, because they realized that there was, thanks to dworkin and macKinnon and the rest of the lesbian right, an epidemic of false accusations. Those little monsters have been safely neutered, though anyone who took the time to read the Archives of Sexual Behaviour at the time would have quickly grasped that it was a fad, like the hula hoop. I am not making light of sex crime, just observing what has often been observed before.

I don't want to edit the main article because I would actually have to do serious research outside my fields of interest, and I have other interests. I am asking for someone who does have an interest to deliver the knockout punch to Dworkin for me. The fact that she was weak and fat doesn't make her any less evil than, say Stalin. It just means that she had to use the only skills she had to practice her witchcraft: a poisoned pen and a vivid imagination. I mourn her passing as I mourned Mao's. If she had been a man she could have done a lot more damage to the world, but she did enough.Seminumerical 20:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You might consider the observation that many have that some women who have been abused tend to end up in relationships which leads them to be abused or dominated again. That doesn't explain rape or assault happening in public or prison (women being abused in prison was so commonplace, it some states, that massive reforms were initiated), but it might explain some of the rest of the accumulation of bad things happening to one woman. 66.57.225.77 04:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

People with extreme opinions should recuse themselves?

Alas, it is far too late for that, Thedoorhinge.

The dogmatic tract was written almost in toto by the extreme partisan protectors of their Saint Andrea’s holy memory. Smirkingly manipulating Wiki policy, reverting endlessly, and always lecturing even-handed commentators that the latter's contributions were morally or substantively insufficient, the fanatics relentlessly bullied their twisted fantasy into becoming the official truth. And in their zealotry to safeguard their idol’s bio against all who sought balance, they somehow even subverted the most basic Wiki rule of all, the right to edit. Yes, now the guardians of Andrea’s sacred legacy have found allies inside Wiki who agree that only *they* can edit the party-approved version, as opposed to anyone interested in objective truth. Wiki doesn't even care that the disinformation comes from her apostates' own Andrea fansites!

Is there such an odious disgrace anywhere else in Wikidom, or is this the very worst?

Make no mistake -- this doctrinaire hagiography is the intellectual ally of Pol Pot. And a leading lesson to all as to how Wiki’s supposed policy for fairness is nothing more than the punchline in a cynical joke, when it comes to determined propagandists. Mare Nostrum 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So, take the high road, and you be the one to start the 'recusing'. Thedoorhinge 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

1. No, Thedoorhinge. As I kindly noted before, I will not shut up. Ever. You can tell me to again, and the answer will always be, "No." Or you can switch to a higher road and stop instructing others to shut up. 2. As it happens, I have not wasted time editing the shabby, propagandistic hagiography for many months so don't worry. 3. But I am certainly not the propagandist as you seem to be implying; I am just pointing out the sad situation. But I realize that even so that really bothers some people who don't like seeing beloved propaganda criticized. Mare Nostrum 09:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along? Be nice to each other.

Dylan Slade 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On a totally different (technical) note...

In the Fiction section, the paragraph beginning "Dworkin, however, wrote 'My fiction is not autobiography...'" is bolded for some reason. When I tried to remove this, I couldn't figure out why it was bolded (couldn't find ' ' ' or HTML coding). Someone who understands the technical underpinnings to Wikipedia should look at this, as I am stumped. Natalie 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody fixed it. How, I don't know, but they did. Natalie 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Bias Warning Added

Why did no one think to add this tag yet? Template:NPOV may or may not be appropriate (there is even considerable debate on that...), but surely no one can dispute Template:Bias Warning applies in spades, here.

I would also ask that before anyone kneejerks and deletes the tag (as was done with the Template:NPOV at one point), they read and contrast the official stated purposes of the two on their descriptor pages. This tag fits to a T, people. Let's rise above... Bullzeye 09:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I finally find a template that seems to suit both sides of the field while still indicating the considerable Sturm und Drang present in this article, and suddenly the entire existence of the template is unsuitable...I apologize, but this raises my hackles a smidge. Eloquence, I recognize you are a high-level fellow at Wikipedia, and are certainly a very busy man, but the template (according to the dictates it is established under) fits the definition of the article's current circumstances to the very letter.

Whether it's very existence (in ANY article) is appropriate is another issue, one that you have raised and is currently being discussed and debated. Unless I'm missing something, it hasn't been definitively ruled upon yet (else it would no longer exist). For that reason, I feel it's unexplained removal does the article a disservice. Surely there MUST be something we can put up there? Bullzeye 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything that casts doubt on Wikipedia's twisted adoration of Saint Andrea, Bullzeye, must go. That's how this one works. Mare Nostrum 12:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Credibility and account of her own life

I came up with an analogy that I believe is relevant to the article's presentation of Andrea Dworkin's life. Although I totally agree that wikipedia should take the person at face value on the events of their own life, in this case I believe there are enough documented criticisms of her truthfulness (Paglia, et all) that there should be at least some mention of her reliability at the start of the article. This has been a recurring theme of the talk on Andrea Dworkin and many editors seem to share the view that there should be some critical views on her account of her own life.

For me the analogy is:

Idi Amin claimed to be the Last King of Scotland. He, no doubt, personally believed this to be true. If asked to give an account of his life he would definitely describe how he became the last king of scotland, however, many other sources do not accept this claim. The problem with THIS ARTICLE is that it presents the above information like this:

  "Idi Amin was the last king of scotland. He became the last king of scotland in year X when seized control of the government of Uganda."

when the information should be presented like this:

  "Idi Amin seized control of Uganda in year X, after which he claimed that he was now the last king of scotland."

The key difference being the separation of objectively verifiable facts and unfalsifiable claims. This separation SHOULD be represented in the Dworkin article, but as it stands the article presents both facts and allegations side by side. I agree with an earlier editor that it is clumsy to add "alleged" or "claimed" to every sentence so I propose that we add a short paragraph just before or after her biography that mentions the fact that many do not find her life history reliable and that the majority of it is self-reported. In this section we would present the view of notable sources that criticize her reliability (i.e. the feminists that criticized her rape accusation) as well as consolidate the criticisms scattered throughout the article. let's discuss before I go ahead and make these changes.

Kaiser187 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sex-positive

Why are sex-positive feminists "sex-positive feminists" in the last section? The use of quotes seems to diminish their role as authentic members of the feminist movement.

We all know why the quotes are there. They are absurd and I have removed them. I also removed 'lightning rod' (melodramatic, not to mention cliched) and 'self described' (what does that mean exactly?). Meanderthal 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because intercourse is occupation and they are collaborators, duh. UPDATE! curse you sinebot! LamontCranston 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation?

Illness & Death I removed "Others blame a poor diet, one which led to her morbid obesity." because it is unsubstantiated. Who are these others and how do they know what Andrea ate? I think such a claim needs backing up, otherwise it's just fat-bashing. Kootenayvolcano 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Illness and Death

Can someone familiar with this article please explain why there are over 20 references for the statement of her age in this paragraph? I think it needs to be trimmed down severely. Cheers!!! Baegis 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it's been 5 days, so I am going to clean up the references on the statement of her age. Baegis 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A. Dworkin.jpg

Image:A. Dworkin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Good Article" put to an experiment

I am going to try an experiment here. This “good article” (sheesh!) is still rife with crackpot references and disinformation, and here is one glaring example:

”Newsweek initially accepted ‘What Battery Really Is’for publication, but then declined to publish the account at the request of their attorney, arguing that Dworkin needed to publish anonymously ‘to protect the identity of the batterer’…

Protect the identity of whom?! Now, Newsweek is a pretty sophisticated organization. That have their PR people and the communications department, their attorneys, and they use words for a living and there is no possible way that they would have said they would not print something in order "to protect the identity of the batterer." It is beyond ridiculous, and it is self-disproving, because if they questioned whether there really was any batterer, they obviously would not have used the term to describe him. Anybody who has ever been in a conflict situation between people can recognize exactly were this language obviously came from: it came from Andrea Dworkin’s side. She and her admittedly radical cohorts obviously made up this reckless, irresponsible, juvenile, and incredible accusation against Newsweek. That Wikipedia publishes it to this day, as true, is pitiful.

Now, what if I am wrong? I am absolutely not, and the idea of this is ludicrous, but what if I somehow am? Well, WHY IS THERE NOT ANY CITATION FOR THIS MOST PREPOSTEROUS REMARK which indeed is incapable of being believed?

This answer is that this libel (and that is what it is) survived here from the most partistan, endlessly-reverting early writers of encomia to their beloved Saint Andrea, i.e., her most devoted fans who had their own websites describing how they hated anybody who questioned her, and it is still right here now, unbelievably. This article having something so utterly implausible, without any cite, evidence or support of any kind, written by propagandists, is in direct violation of Wiki standards (not to mention basic common sense).

So what if I try to quietly take it out, in a respectful way, using neutral language? It has no cite, right, so how can it possibly be there? Well, let’s see how many hours or minutes it takes for me to get reverted by The Faithful, shall we? Mare Nostrum 14:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WELL, IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG! The nonsensical statement, which adds nothing to the article overall except for being shabby sounding bombast, is back as it was! There is now a pointless and misleading footnote added, which if you check shows that this hysterical hoopla is indeed Andrea's own invention, but you would have to go back and read one of her hate-filled polemics to get to the very point I made: this is not objective truth, it is Andrea's (as usual) baseless accusation of what happened. Printed here (and reverted for umpteenth time) as though it really went down that way, which is utterly preposterous (and probably libelous of Newsweek by the way) as I noted. Good article! Mare Nostrum 23:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mare Nostrum (talk • contribs)

• So are you admitting to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?

JuJube (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

NAW, I was seeing if calmly changing a blurb of ludicrous propaganda into a balanced, neutral phrase was something that the Wikipedia process could sustain in this context. Because of people like you, who chirpily flout Wiki principles and so much more by regarding free speech and accuracy as "disrupting", it cannot. And the reverting propagandists endlessly prevail, then crown their tawdry disinformation campaign as a "good" article.

I view your antidemocratic wisecrack as disgraceful. Mare Nostrum 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, are you admitting to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Don't try to avoid answering a direct question by spouting rants. JuJube (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a troll please! And please read the policy you're citing. Matre Nostrum just removed an uncited statement.

• If you think someone unjustifiably removed your additions to an article with the edit summary "unsourced"...
  • do find a source for your additions
  • don't remove all unsourced content on the page or re-add your information claiming that the entire page is unsourced

--Zslevi (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The statement Matre Nostrum removed was sourced, but she/he has made clear her/his contempt for the source (Andrea Dworkin). So she/he substituted her/his own judgment for that of the source (it's called WP:OR) and rewrote the statement to say something other than what the source said. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(to Zslevi) Don't be ignorant please! The policy I'm citing is WP:POINT which has nothing to do with the policy you're citing, which has nothing to do with the situation at hand. JuJube (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked up the changes Nostrum made, and I found them OK, because though those controverisal claims were not attributed to anyone. (So it might seem that it was quoted from Newsweek.) I see that "to protect the identity of the batterer" is attributed now to Dworkin in the text, so I think it's fine this way. But Nostrum had valid points, and it was unfair to bring up "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", because he was not disruptive in any way. (No edit war, or anything unconstructive. ) --Zslevi (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Matre Nostrum acknowledged her/his objective from the start: putting the article to an experiment. What are the first words of WP:POINT? State your point; don't prove it experimentally. I'm sorry, but pretending that there is something noble in what she/he did is nonsense. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

His edit speaks for itself. There were claims with misunderstandable attribution. He has an opinion about Dworkin, but it's not a sin. Assume good faith. His concerns were recognized by other editors, and the article was corrected. It doesn't matter whether he called his claims a "thought experiment or not. (On the other hand it's quite funny that you're quoting WP:POINT, and at the same time gaming the system. If someone is disruptive here, it's you.) --Zslevi (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed, that you, Shabazz was the one, who corrected the attribution. I think you're riding a dead horse. --Zslevi (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Matre Nostrum's "experiment" wasn't a "concern" that was recognized by other editors, it was a disruptive exercise intended to make a WP:POINT, and she/he said as much. It's hard to assume good faith when an editor engages in such infantile theatrics.

PS: Nice detective work, figuring out that it was I who fixed Matre Nostrum's "experiment". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the ride on the dead horse: It's time for you to make some detective work as well, and see what the article said before Mare Nostrum edited it, and how ambigous that sentence was. His rant in the talk page doesn't count. I think he acted on good faith. (Don't get me wrong, I don't want revert to his versiom. ) --Zslevi (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is, the quote comes from Andrea Dworkin in a section about criticism of her and skepticism over her claims. I think at the very least it should say in the text of the article that she said it. To not do so implies an official statement from Newsweek, which it is not, and that this definitely happened, which we do not know. 208.81.93.128 (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Greece vs. Amsterdam

Can someone please explain this: The article states matter-of-factly that Dworkin spent a year (around 1966) traveling from Paris to Greece on Orient Express on her way to Crete where she devoted her time to writing. Obviously, this took some serious financial backing (the article doesn't mention her supporting herself by any means at the time, unless a twenty-ish (undoubtedly locally perceived as) weird American kid is able to support herself by publishing in English on conservative Crete). And yet, two or three years and two Atlantic crossings later, she is unable to escape her abusive husband (does anyone know chap's name, BTW?), because she cannot afford an airplane ticket (nor, presumably, ticket on one of countless freighters sailing from Rotterdam to USA)!? What, no help from friends (American or local), family, USA embassy? No way to scrape few hundred bucks waiting tables or teaching kids English? Finally, the saviors turn out to be heroin smugglers (generally known for their good heart)!? Excuse me, but this sounds a bit "decorated"... If anybody has a good explanation, please enlighten me (and edit the article for the same purpose). --bonzi (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to challenge this article's "Good Article" status? --bonzi (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dworkin's claims are absurd on their face. The Repatriation Assistance Act of 1935 provides funds to American citizens to return home when they cannot afford to do so on their own. Yet we're supposed to believe, with no evidence, that Dworkin was willing to risk decades in prison for smuggling heroin rather than fill out some paperwork at the US Embassy? Just more evidence of the histrionic personality in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.176.74 (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious that Dworkin presented a fictionalized account of many aspects of her life. I believe it is still verboten in some feminist circles to discuss this; strange. The Amsterdam-Embassy example you cite above is a good one. If I recall correctly, Dworkin claimed that she had no money, was being stalked by this abusive husband, and had her passport taken away (by said husband), thus 'trapping' her in the Netherlands. That's all ridiculous. People lose their passports every day overseas. You simply drop by the Embassy or Consulate (right there in Amsterdam) and get a replacement. It ain't that hard, I've done it (in Brazil)! And you are right, you can even get a type of loan for a plane ticket to the U.S. Especially in the days before ATMs everywhere, if you had your passport/wallet/purse stolen overseas, you might be flat broke, and the Consular officers are there to help get you back. It pushes believability that an educated person like Dworkin couldn't do this during her 'months' of penniless misery in Holland.

The 'Silent Night,' example is another good one. You may notice the references in the article for all these things are self-referential. They come solely from Dworkin. There were never witnesses to most of these things, just Andrea's assertions years later. But when she tried it again with the rape charges in later life, she pushed it too far. I know some feminist apologists tried to suggest the waiters in question did it BECAUSE they thought it would be funny to do such a thing to Andrea Dworkin-- seriously! As if four French waiters would recognize her (Hey! It's Andrea Dworkin!) or even know who she was! No, she pushed it too far. The article does a good job at the end of mentioning the controversy surrounding her, but it would be nice to see some quotes from feminists (and there are more and more, I think) who are quite willing to come out and say Dworkin lied, flat out, to enhance her career and status as a radical feminist and victim.

I agree, it seems painfully obvious that Dworkin lied about a great many things in her life. When I first read about the Amsterdam tale, I just had to shake my head. An educated American woman who has been travelling throughout Europe is suddenly "trapped" in the Netherlands for 6 months and has to turn to prostitution and drug smuggling because her abusive husband stole her passport? Uh, yeah, sure. I actually agree with her to some extent on porn. I think much of it, especially in the internet age, is very demeaning and mysogenistic. But Dworkin was a flake and yeah, like you say, flat-out lied to further her career, again and again. It amazes me that she is so sacrosanct among feminists. But there is a real orthodoxy with many feminists that you just don't mess it, as I've learned many a time! 64.58.106.139 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Jerseygirl

Dworkin was a fake. Whatever rightness or wrongness of the porn critique, she made up tons of shit about her life to gain more attention. The guy above who mentions the internet age is right. Crazy stories were easier to get away with back in the '70s, but not in a globalized world. even then, her stories about Amsterdam, etc., were crazy. But I don't think feminists can come out and say so. Its like many blacks with OJ Simpson. Its hard for them to publicly say "yeah, he did it" even when everyone knows he did. No offense meant, but that dynamic seems to exist with lots of people. Same thing with the Dworkin case.216.147.135.65 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Lemminkainen

Cherry Hill didn't exist in 1956

The article states that Dworkin was born in 1946, and that when she was 10 (i.e., 1956) her family moved to the suburbs of [Cherry Hill Township, New Jersey]. But Cherry Hill was known as Delaware Township until 1961. --Rpresser 01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• This was a rename. We could say that "she was born in Delaware Township (now known as Cherry Hill Township)", or some variation thereof. Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Taxes?

She's listed as a tax resister at the bottom, but I didn't notice any mention in the article. What the story?--Beaker342 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Husband's name?

The only problem I have with this article is it refers to a first husband, but never by his name. He's not even listed under spouses. Is there some backstory? Do people believe he may not have existed? Was there no record or paperwork on him? Or is it more a concern over libel if he was never charged with abuse? Seems like there should be something to the effect of a: "Court records show Dworkin was married to John Smythe in 19--, but no arrest or conviction records for abuse have been confirmed." Or soething like that. 24.211.187.58 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing seems very odd. If she was married, when was she divorced? Are there any papers? Is any of this history sourced from anywhere other than her own claims? Others above have noticed the obvious strangeness of her claims of being "marooned" and then saved by a heroin smuggler(!). Without corroborating evidence, shouldn't this all be described as "alleged"? Her lurid backstory demands some scepticism if there is no corroboration.82.71.30.178 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Andrea Dworkin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The references are a mixture of in-line citation, Havard and embeded html links. They should be standardized, ideally to in-line citations. The publishers are often missing, e.g. ref #57 The Guardian, #59, #75 NY Times. There is one dead link - ref #50 Wall Street Journal.. several paragraphs are completely un-referenced. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I added sources or removed unsourced material. One link is dead (footnote 63). I can delete the URL and keep the reference to the John Leo article, or I can leave the old URL. Any thoughts? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think you should delete that ref if you can't find an archived copy. If you have the actula ref saved and can be sure it is the artcile thane remove the url or quote it in a way to say you have verified it.

1. • Dworkin and MacKinnon, however, continued to discuss civil rights litigation as a possible approach to combating pornography. In the fall of 1983, MacKinnon secured a one-semester appointment for Dworkin at the University of Minnesota, to teach a course in literature for the Women's Studies program and co-teach (with MacKinnon) an interdepartmental course on pornography, where they hashed out details of a civil rights approach. With encouragement from community activists in south Minneapolis, the Minneapolis city government hired Dworkin and MacKinnon to draft an antipornography civil rights ordinance as an amendment to the Minneapolis city civil rights ordinance. The amendment defined pornography as a civil rights violation against women, and allowed women who claimed harm from pornography to sue the producers and distributors in civil court for damages. The law was passed twice by the Minneapolis city council but vetoed by Mayor Don Fraser, who considered the wording of the ordinance to be too vague. Another version of the ordinance passed in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1984, but overturned as unconstitutional by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case American Booksellers v. Hudnut. needs referencing.
   • In 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling in R. v. Butler which incorporated some elements of Dworkin and MacKinnon's legal work on pornography into the existing Canadian obscenity law. In Butler the Court held that Canadian obscenity law violated Canadian citizens' rights to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if enforced on grounds of morality or community standards of decency; but that obscenity law could be enforced constitutionally against some pornography on the basis of the Charter's guarantees of sex equality. The Court's decision cited extensively from briefs prepared by the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), with the support and participation of Catharine MacKinnon. Andrea Dworkin opposed LEAF's position, arguing that feminists should not support or attempt to reform criminal obscenity law. needs referncing.
   • In 1997, Dworkin published a collection of her speeches and articles from the 1990s in Life and Death: Unapologetic Writings on the Continuing War on Women, including a long autobiographical essay on her life as a writer, and articles on violence against women, pornography, prostitution, Nicole Brown Simpson, the use of rape during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Montreal massacre, Israel, and the gender politics of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. needs refrencing.
   • Dworkin authored ten books of radical feminist theory and numerous speeches and articles, each designed to assert the presence of and denounce institutionalized and normalized harm against women. She became one of the most influential writers and spokeswomen of American radical feminism during the late 1970s and the 1980s. She characterized pornography as an industry of damaging objectification and abuse, not merely a fantasy realm. She discussed prostitution as a system of exploitation, and intercourse as a key site of subordination in patriarchy. Her analysis and writing influenced and inspired the work of her contemporary feminists, such as Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinem, John Stoltenberg, Nikki Craft, Susan Cole, and Amy Elman. needs referncing
   • Many of Dworkin's early speeches are reprinted in her second book, Our Blood (1976). Later selections of speeches were reprinted ten and twenty years later, in Letters from a War Zone (1988) and Life and Death (1997). needs referncing.
   • Some critics, such as Larry Flynt's magazine Hustler and Gene Healy, allege that Dworkin endorsed incest. needs referncing.

• Done. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1. • All done  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • There are a large number of links to blogs and personal websites, which are not regarded as RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I deleted the links that weren't WP:RS. Susie Bright is an expert in her field and I think her blog (footnote 60) qualifies as an acceptable WP:SPS. Nikki Craft's website is the "official" Dworkin website (see the middle of this page). Please let me know if you think any of the other sources are unacceptable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)]

1. • All accepatable now. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

2. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • no images used

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • n/a

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Ok, this needs the referencing sorting out. Otherwise it is a good article and an interesting read. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   • I see some progress is being made so I am happy to leave on hold for a further seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   • Staying on hold for unrefernced sections to be referenced. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
   • OK, all fixed now, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Solid Critique of Andrea Dworkin

What I find disturbing is the lack of solid (logical) critique of Dworkin's work. I read her book "Pornography". She goes and on and on about the Marquis de Sade but neglects to mention some very essential points: The Marquis was a victim of a Lettre de cachet rigged by his Mother-in-law, Madame de Montreuil, which was the French equivalent of today's Patriot Act or Hitler's Nacht und Nebel decree (German meaning "night and fog"). In all cases, the victim is arrested at any time of the day or night, without being told what are the charges and can be held indefinitely without trial or contact with the outside world. As a matter of historical fact, de Sade spent more time in a prison or an asylum than out. Most of his writings involve fantasies, not actual events. Had it not been for the obsession of his Mother-in-law, de Sade would have remained an obscure libertine. His long imprisonment transformed de Sade into a lunatic where his pornographic writings became his only escape. Call this, the "sexual politics" of his time. Dworkin never discusses this. Morever, Dworkin never explains the fantastic leap in logic in transitioning from de Sade's writings to the fantasies of every men. Her claims in this regard are actually and obviously ludicruous. In view of this, in spite of all its (self-conscious) references, Dworkin's work is severly flawed and actually represents the lowest form of scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.55.235 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that make this critique, please add it to the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Please pay attention to Wikipedia's policy on No Original Research. In terms of criticism, that means while inclusion of published, verifiable critical perspectives is a must, per WP:NPOV, criticism coming from original analysis on the part of the Wikipedia editor, or original synthesis of published materials, is an absolute no-no. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of her writing is literary deconstruction, and, as far as I know, taking something apart and finding what is thereby revealed does not have to follow a consistent method, never mind a rigorously scientific method. The relatively few literary deconstructions I've read are usually of literature I haven't consumed in the first place and, I think, they're almost always of fiction, including of TV shows and movies, which legitimizes more methods of deconstruction, and is almost always of widely-consumed literature, so that most of the target of deconstruction is the popular perceptions of the literature, and, even as a nonconsumer, I may have absorbed those. Instead of relying on the original literature that is the subject of the deconstruction, I'm reading the deconstruction for what it has to say about, say, life. In that case, the literature being deconstructed becomes a tool to an end, the end being the analysis of life or another subject. Thus, if Andrea left something out, and doubtless most deconstruers leave something out, it may be that what she left out was not important to the point she was making, a determination she, like any deconstruer, is entitled to make. It's too much to ask whether the history of Jeanne d'Arc proves her point about sexual relationships; it's more relevant whether her point about sexual relationships has validity. The history of Jeanne d'Arc may or may not help illuminate Andrea's point, but the important point is the point about sexual relationships. Because different people have different experiences and perspectives with respect to a point about sexual relationships, in the same point one person may find validity and another person may find invalidity. Her point does not become right only if it is agreed to by a majority. But none of that makes her work lacking in necessary essence. Significantly misquoting would be a problem; if hers was primarily a study on the Marquis de Sade with external applicability being secondary, lack of essence critical to understanding the Marquis de Sade would be a problem; but hers is primarily a study on external matters to which the Marquis de Sade is secondary, and literary deconstruction has no settled method (unlike, say, engineering), so selectively quoting because she chooses what's important is not wrong. If you don't trust her method of deconstruing, you, like the public, are free to not read it or to read for the nondeconstructional content and make of it what you will. That's what I recommend focusing on, as I've done when reading Andrea Dworkin and Camille Paglia. If we want to collect all the reviews of an author's work and categorize them by reviewer's views, for a few leading books that might be interesting, but for most books an analytical organization of reviews probably is not. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Intercourse

The article on Intercourse is contradictory. In the first paragraph it states that the book was about how all heterosexual intercourse is abusive/coercive. Later in the same section it repudiates this statement. Of course, maybe Dworkin was herself confused or irrationally biased.Bokuto (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article reports what the book says, what people interpret that to mean, and how Dworkin explained what she meant. If there seems to be a contradiction between what she wrote in her book and what she said in an interview, we (i.e., Wikipedia editors) can't make a judgment as to who is right or wrong. We only report what other people have written or said. I hope this helps. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, Dworkin does view heterosexual intercourse as abusive/coercive. Though the notion of penis envy is derided as ludicrous as in, for example, Germaine Greer's the Female eunuch, in Dworkin's case, one has a bona-fide example of "penis hatred". Human beings are mammals and sexual reproduction is programmed within us via the sexual instinct. This exception to nature itself is clearly pointless and even irrational. It alarms me how many people agree with Dworkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.179.52 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No foto?

Can anybody find some? ·Carn !? 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

bits missing- lovers, plus why disbelieved?

As a person new to this article, I am struck by how it doesn't mention any female lovers she may have had. She identified as lesbian- of course she had a perfect right to do so for her own reasons, but I was wondering if there are any people known in WP:RS to have been her lovers?

The other thing I was wondering is if it could be explained why people disbelieved her claims of rape, what reasons did those disbelieving her give? (Or course, women are often disbelieved when it's true.) special, random, Merkinsmum 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, friends. The question of why she is not believed, assuming you are serious, open-minded, and earnest about this, is a good one. I remember reading the Guardian article in real time, in France, when it came out. I was drinking a Kir Royale a the time, a champagne cocktail that Andrea apparently passed out over, and I myself realized, *this is simply not credible.* You may or may not be offended by me saying this, but I have longed turned my back on the world of the PC, so I will proceed: this is an older, obese, ill-dressed, unkempt, woman of ghastly ugliness, looking well beyond her ample years, and in ill health. Some may tell us till-the-cows-come-home that all of these points are neutral to a potential rapist -- the fact that his intended victim is hiedeously ugly, means *nothing* to him. He would just as soon rape the ill-dressed, ugliest woman on earth, as Miss Universe in a micro-mini: it simply doesn't matter to him since rape is a crime of violence. FEW PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS -- I DON'T.

The waiters, if they were rapists, had choices. Andrea would be the very, very last on their line, and you can be pretty sure not then either. Whether they could rape her and resist vomiting is a real question.

Moreover, the seeds of paranoia are right there in the Guardian article. To Andrea's credit, she literally makes no mention of being raped. None. Don't ask others, look at it. Read the article. She says that she was drinking in the hotel bar/cafe, she fell asleep, woke up in her room with her vagina bleeding a bit, and therefore she decided she had been raped. That's her account, not mine. Well, what if she was drinking, got a lot a little tipsy (or maybe a lot), went to her room somehow, or was helped there by the hotel staff who may been concerned (or aghast)? What if she fell? Drunk on the restaurant floor? Or had an infection? She was ill, remember. We absolutely don't know what happened. Neither did she. And nobody asked the accused.

Andrea thus admits four things. She was drinking. Lost consciousness. Doesn't know what happened. Has no memory of rape. Again, we can add a fifth that she was fabulously unattractive on top of this. In light of the above, she determined she'd been raped and wrote a fantastical article about it. Well, people were shocked when they read it. I remember reading the article, thinking, good Christmas, what the heck is this? The woman I was travellin with had the same reaction, and we looked at one another, shaking our heads, in amazement.

If anything, I think Andrea set back real victims of rape, because after her fable, they also might not be believed, which would be a tragedy. Oh, and by the way, a lot of her other accounts of abuse (maybe all of them, actually) also have no witnesses. They may have happened (or not), but it doesn't seem like this one did. It did get her a lot of attention, though, didn't it? If that is what she wanted, good for her, because even though she passed years ago, we are still talking about it. My best to you, Mare Nostrum 14:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming the guy/s would have wanted normal sex (so to speak) and therefore would have made another choice, so she couldn't have been raped or even invited for a date. However, rape for political purposes exists; consider wartime rape by victors and by soldiers in battle; and consider reports of women who are raped in nursing homes, which cases are often difficult to prosecute because of memory issues by the time a case comes to trial. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Was it wartime, or a nursing home, or was it an absurdly unattractive woman alone in a locked hotel room?--Thedoorhinge (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To suggest that she could not have been raped because she was fat and unattractive is not good enough. Pensioners, conventionally unattractive people, overweight people and children are raped all the time. All the more reason that the doubts expressed should be clarified. Currently they just sit there in the article unexplained, along with another reference to accusations of insanity. I am absolutely not qualified to elucidate this, is anyone else? 84.215.54.198 (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please point to the specific passages that perhaps should be edited? And if you have additional sources that we should know about, could you please list them or add them to the article? That'll give us starting points. Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm.. you do realize that other reasons were provided besides the fact that she was a hideous looking Jabba the Hutt type woman? Her nastiness certainly does qualify as a valid reason to doubt she was raped. While I agree that, on its own, it is insuffcient to prove anything but you have completely ignored the other listed reasons for doubt -- not the least of which that she doesn't remember being raped. I'll add yet another reason, she was something of paranoid radical that could find "patriarchal abuse" in a croissant if she looked at it for more than 30 seconds. As far as politically motivated rapes, those don't fit the bill of an unconscious woman. In order for the act to be vengeful or personal they would have wanted her to be conscious of it. Raping an unconscious women is overwhelming more likely to be done for sexual gratification than for "political purposes," in which case, the Jabba the Hutt principle is clearly a meaningful factor.--Cybermud (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sympathetic women are not the only ones raped. She was a direct and clear communicator and that sometimes is taken as nastiness. I've read several of her books and don't recall her ever focusing on anything trivial as a proof of sexism; maybe it was in passing; if paid bakers are predominantly male and if the men generally exclude women from cooking for pay that's patriarchal abuse. Good point on political rape but not always the case: one could rape an available woman for political reasons without insisting on consciousness.

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article. This discussion is legitimate if it is to support editing the article. If you have a source, please post.

I indented your reply to distinguish it from the previous.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the above indentation now gives the impression I was replying to you rather than the IP.

Calling blatant misandry and conspiracy theory paranoia "clear communication" is about the worst euphemism I've ever seen. What Dworkin may have termed "patriarchal abuse" (by the all powerful and ideologically conforming "Baker's Guild for Men" no doubt) is no more or less than sexism. Though I doubt she would have appended "abuse" to the term. That is a continuation of the modern day, never-ending domain expansion of "abuse" to include anything and everything that hurts, discriminates or merely annoys women (eg psychological, emotional, intellectual, financial, etc abuse). I'm sure some would call my very words here "intellectual abuse" a la Vision 2000 and advocate I be banned for writing them. The fact is that Dworkin's rape claims were widely disbelieved, for good reason. I'm ok with expanding on those reasons but not implying that the public's disbelief was somehow unfounded or didn't exist. No new sources are needed to support that -- only an accurate representation of the existing ones. btw.. I have no idea what you mean by "Sympathetic women are not the only ones raped." Sympathetic to what?--Cybermud (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My solution is to indent anyway and then name (maybe in boldface) the earlier poster to whom I'm replying.

If the article with respect to the rape of her misrepresents any source, or the totality if a source is omitted, please let us know how it misrepresents.

"I have no idea what you mean by 'Sympathetic women are not the only ones raped.' Sympathetic to what?" The term sympathetic women is used in another sense: 'women for whom there is sympathy'. The statement was in response to your "[h]er nastiness certainly does qualify as a valid reason to doubt she was raped."

Other points: "What Dworkin may have termed 'patriarchal abuse' . . . is no more or less than sexism." Exactly. Given your context, it looks like that's not what you meant or you're approving sexism. The Vision 2000 statement does not refer to "intellectual abuse". Intellectual abuse occurs and occurs genderally. ". . . [D]omain expansion of 'abuse' to include anything and everything that hurts, discriminates or merely annoys women (eg psychological, emotional, intellectual, financial, etc abuse):" I don't see a linguistic problem with this. Evidence amply supports it substantively; no room is left on this page to recount feminist history. Reanalyzing what you describe as "blatant misandry and conspiracy theory paranoia" would take far too long on a talk page intended for improving the article, not for discussing her work otherwise. I accept we disagree.

Nick Levinson (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhh.. ok. I, also, accept that um.. you accept that we disagree.

"Intellectual abuse occurs and occurs genderally..." Postmodernism Generator?

Glad you see no "linuguistic problem" with defining abuse as "anything that merely annoys women," no doubt we can also call the "abusers" (ie men) "batterers." Better yet, let's just call them "<insert adjective here> rapists," and say all men are rapists (because, of course, they are.) No need to "to recount feminist history" your approval of rhetorical acrobatics with "abuse" illustrates the point I was making quite nicely, TYVM.--Cybermud (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Question to everyone involved: Is it okay for an editor to express his unsubstantiated theories about "politically motivated rape" and the causes of rape, and opine on how being ugly relates to being raped? I understand that "men's rights activists" have their axe to grind, but could they perhaps try to discuss the content of this article rather than lecturing people on "misandry" and how Dworkin's alleged "nastiness" justifies their suspicion of her victimization? Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick Levinson, thank you for reverting this edit [1] by Cybermud. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for restoring this edit by a non-editor with ad-hominem attacks against me about "activism" and "axe-grinding." I was mistaken to consider it trolling, and am now convinced that it, and your enlightening response to it will help build a better encyclopedia. To respond myself in the same constructive spirit, disagreements amonsgst editors that are germane to the article and made in the spirit of improving the article are not axe-grinding or activism. You may want to read about WP policies starting with Assume good faith. While I disagree with Nick, unlike with your edits, it is clear he is (aside from restoring you) discussing the article itself for the purpose of creating a good article not opining perjoratively on the motivations or ideology of the person making it. My opinions on this author are hardly a minority view and, even if they were, merit much more respect than your derisive comments demonstrate.--Cybermud (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion that rape victims deserve to be treated with suspicion and the utmost contempt if they are "nasty" (your definition of the word being unknown) is the majority view in certain circles. Is suppose you know the quote about majority opinions. The problem is that Wikipedia talk pages aren't supposed to be used as outlets for your unsubstantiated theories about rape. If you want to rant about this woman's "nastiness," compare her to Jabba the Hutt and heap scorn on her victimization, okay, but I don't see how this is supposed to build a better encyclopedia. It's your theory that Dworkin's alleged "nastiness" and resemblance to [[Jabba the Hutt] justifies suspicion of her victimization that I think is inappropriate for Wikipedia talk pages and inappropriate in general. Not to mention you other offensive theories about rape. I suggest you look up the definition of ad hominem.

Your combative reply to Nick Levinson, your unprovoked tirade about "blatant misandry" and "all men are rapists" won't build a better encyclopedia.

Merkinsmum, Dworkin was disbelieved because some people have odd theories about rape and because victim blaming is the favorite pastime for some people. I have yet to see one credible source substantiate these theories. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can clearly see that Nick was right. You are not at all continuing in the same vandal-like vein with which you started posting. Nor are you continuing to focus on me and my posts rather than the article, and I'm quite sure that, at any moment, you will have something to say about Andrea Dworkin, the author, feminist and activist whose article's talk page you are waxing poetic about "men's rights activists" on. I must say though, you've constructed a lovely straw man by generalizing my views of Dworkin to be my views on all women. You've also done a fine a job of quoting me out of context. As much as I'd love to explain these concepts to you in intricate detail this is not the forum for it and this particular topic (ie the disbelief of Dworkin's alleged rape) has already been "battered" to death. I am done with this conversation. I know how important it is to get the last word so I'll let you have it. Please call me a misogynistic men's rights activist and tell me to stop whining and be a man that my mother won't be ashamed of so that you can declare victory and find somewhere else to troll.--Cybermud (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick was right. Pointing out to you that Wikipedia talk pages are not to be used as outlets for your unsubstantiated theories about "politically motivated rape" is the opposite of vandalism. So let me remind you again. Using this talk page to express your opinion that "hideous looking," Jabba the Hutt type or "nasty" women (your description of Andrea Dworkin) deserve to be met with suspicion and scorn if they are sexually assaulted is inappropriate here (although, as you point out, it is the majority opinion in certain circles). Not because I believe them to be unethical (which I do) but because they are disruptive and irrelevant unless you can provide credible sources. This is also true for your other theories about "blatant misogyny" and "all men are rapists" and all the other highly emotional and irrational things you wrote.

Perhaps one day you will understand the concept of ad hominem attacks and learn the difference between focusing on a comment and focusing on a person. I have been doing the former. You, on the other hand, have used this page to conduct a character assassination of Dworkin, ridicule every other editor (Nick Levinson, in particular) and attack me for enforcing Wikipedia rules. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

photo link and godson

Should we provide a link to a 1974 photograph of her (photo shown by the photographer (scroll down), as accessed Sep. 15, 2010)? The link probably would be at the end of the External Links section. The photo itself cannot be posted unless someone gets permission, but the link itself is not illegally facilitating copyright infringement, so it would be legal. On the other hand, would this be too trivial and/or trivializing?

Her godson is Isaac Dorfman Silverglate, according to her book Scapegoat (hardcover, 2000), p. [v] (dedication page). The godfather was/is Allen Ginsberg. Does Isaac count as part of her family? In some cultures, the godparent is responsible for the godchild's (or the godfather is responsible for the godson's) college education; at any rate, he has graduated from Columbia University. And, by the way, I think she was atheist. Should this relationship be mentioned?

Nick Levinson (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw both as questions.

Other (and probably better) pictures are findable, albeit not necessarily licensable for WP, and while WP likes having pics I doubt there's much need in this case and it too much risks trivializing her work.

And I forgot that Allen Ginsberg is the one to whom she had said "I'd kill you" re child porn ([2], as accessed Oct. 8, 2010), so the godchild relationship, which I don't recall paralleled in other WP biographies, would need more about this or shouldn't be in, and in the context of her life's work it's an interesting story but maybe not important enough to fit into a single article on her.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Writing America excerpt somewhere?

Andrea died while she was writing a new book, Writing America, and she got about two chapters more or less done. I thought an excerpt was posthumously posted to the Web, with permission, but I'm beginning to think I'm confusing it with another work of hers. I'd like to cite a Writing America excerpt if it publicly exists, but I can't find it. Anyone know about it? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Drug-Rape in Paris

The section describing Dworkin's account of being drugged and raped in Paris seems to have been removed, and it's still being mentioned later in the text. I'm guessing it was cut because there is controversy around it, but both the story and the controversy are documented by reliable sources and have obvious bearing on her biography. Can we put it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.53.19 (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The account of Dworkin's rape has not been removed. In Andrea Dworkin#Later life, please see the paragraph that begins, "In June 2000" (the penultimate paragraph). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence?

More than once in this article, it claims Dworkin was either "molested" or "raped" by various men. Is there any actual evidence that these events took place? Or do with only have Dworkin's word for it. Judging from images of her, it seems highly unlikely that she would be targeted in such a way. - 90.212.77.135 (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks you are poking a sacred cow but this has been discussed at length here[[3]]--Cybermud (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrea Dworkin fictionalized many parts of her life; this became more and more apparent as the years went by and comminications/information access improved. As you, note, however, criticizing Dworkin's veracity is indeed a sacred cow among many feminists and certainly verboten if said criticism is coming from a man. In particular, Dworkin's sensationalistic account of her time in the Netherlands is rather absurd. Despite being a degreed, published author with international travel experience, she claims that her ex-husband/abuser stole her passport, rendered her homeless, and that she was unable to obtain money or documentation to return to the States for months and "forced" into prostitution. This-- despite the fact that she could have walked into the American Consulate that was literally in the same neighborhood she lived in/frequented and obtained a new passport AND air or sea passage back to the States at ANY time; that her parents and family could easily have wired her money (in response to questions about this, Dworkin claimed that she was too embarrassed and traumatized to consider this option); and that, presimably, the "underground" friends with whom whe lived and who sheltered her (almost none of whom were ever identified, and in later years, when names Dworkin had earlier used proved impossible to trace, was explained away by the new fact that these friends "used aliases" even among themselves) could have scraped up the very modest sum necessary to but a one-way ticket to NY.

These sensational accounts and vignettes brought Dworkin much aclaim, but whatever bad things really happenend to her in Amsterdam, her account was intentionally and extremely embellished and exaggerated, and changed as the years went by. But again-- I have always been amazed at how pointing out the obvious as regards Dworkin is absolutely forbidden, and hpw sacrosanct she is. The orthodoxy of the far left is just as strong as that of the right!98.163.90.86 (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)FinnGirlBlue66

This talk page is for discussing the article. For example, if you wish information from the post above added to the article, please source the information. This discussion page is not for anything outside of the article. That's why I'm not countering point for point. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

credibility and condemnation

This responds to recent edits two of which I'm reversing and one of which I'm not.

She, not merely someone else, reported the molestation and she doesn't identify the molester, and so it doesn't require corroboration. It is NPOV for Wikipedia to state her statement.

• Just to note it, that doesn't make any sense. You are falsely presenting her uncorroborated account as fact, i.e., willfully misleading the reader. There is nothing remotely wrong with adding the slightest context to it AS I DID, apart from the idiotic Wiki jargon you site without explanation. None of the events in her improbable serial victimization throughout life has any corroboration at all, of course, ZERO, and the last one, the ludicrous account of the world's least attractive woman somehow getting herself raped was laughed out of the public domain even by slack-jawed arch-feminists. I have personally little doubt that she made up all the rest too, but I don't say that in any way, merely offer the slightest and most neutral context -- saying it comes from her. Sure she reported it herself -- we know! It's you who are preventing the reader from ALSO knowing -- thus you deliberately shade the truth without any legitimate purpose. Mare Nostrum 10:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC) *

The punctuation puts doubt into whether she was married, not the abuse. Such a doubt requires a source. *That's your dubious and creative misinterpretation. If you want better punctuation, correct and don't revert. You are too clever by half. You are supposed to not only *be* objective, but also *seem* to us as though you really are. Mare Nostrum 10:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC) *

That her first husband abused her is already reported. *REPORTED???! Oh! By *her,* you mean, yeah yeah, sure!! Again, *we* know! Your role, though, is to make sure that unlike us, the reader does NOT understand. Mare Nostrum 10:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC) *

I'm unaware of her then-husband ever responding. *Yeah, how about that?!Mare Nostrum 10:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC) * I don't know of a valid source for denying or doubting her report. *Good God, no one is proposing to deny her report! As I rendered it, it's reported quietly as being HER account. As you openly misstate it, it's fact. Mare Nostrum 10:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC) *

Biblicality is irrelevant and being a nonsequitur is unidentifiable. *And this is argumentative and time-wasting. The overcharged word "condemn" is utterly silly in the context -- very obviously. Glad you finally agreed with that, at least the result."

The difference between condemn and denounce is that denounce means what condemn means plus making it public. See Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms: A Dictionary of Discriminated Synonyms with Antonyms and Analogous and Contrasted Words (Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam (A Merriam-Webster), 1973 (SBN 0-87779-141-4)), entry for criticize. Reject is a bit milder. See id., entry for decline. Her work was about more than merely abandoning anti-obscenity law; she opposed it because of what it said about women, whom she supported. So both condemn and denounce better befit her approach to pornography and denounce fits her being public about condemning it, including anti-obscenity law.

• Her approach to pornography is internally inconsistent throughout. That's the bigger problem.Mare Nostrum 10:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC) *

Nick Levinson (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope readers of this talk section can sort out who wrote what above. And I don't care for your accusing me groundlessly (e.g., "willfully misleading") and expecting me to violate Wikipedia's policies to boot.

Corroboration was a legal requirement for conviction of a named defendant. But most rapes that do occur are not reported to police or brought to court, and it's not factually sustainable to argue that rapes only happen when corroborated, because it's not sustainable to argue that rapes only happen when convictions ensue. So the lack of corroborations of her complaints don't mean the events she described didn't happen. You can believe her reports or not, as you wish, but we try to be consistent in Wikipedia on believing self-reports. In cases wherein no suspect is named, there's no BLP issue. So given that she said she was molested and raped, such things happen, and she didn't contradict her statements, we can believe her, and consistently with WP practice we do. For example, if someone tells us they had a brother, we don't modify that with "allegedly" unless there's credibly contradictory information. Now, if someone has come forward who says he went to that hotel room and, being a doctor, examined her in her sleep and left her in the shape she found herself in and if his statement is credible (unlikely but let's say it is), that could be a viable contradiction of her statement. I don't know of such a source, but if you do please post it.

Claims that ugly women don't get raped defies various studies and statistics. If you have a source that supports that defiance, but it isn't specific to Andrea Dworkin, then it might belong in the rape article, but not here. But a surmise that she being ugly or statistically unlikely to have been raped means she couldn't have been raped is not a strong enough source for this article. Not even if hundreds of people surmise the same way, all independently of each other. They're still surmises, not a fact. Facts count.

I suggest you reconsider your assigning agency to her as having caused her own rape. You bet that would need a source.

I observe that the rape is doubted but I don't recall anyone doubting her having been in prostitution. I doubt there's any more corroboration for the latter than the former.

I would have moved the punctuation if the statement didn't need reverting anyway. Otherwise, you're right that moving it would have been more reasonable.

Your statement about jargon is confusing. If you meant that NPOV is idiotic, take it up on Wikipedia NPOV policy page, MOS page, or some such. If you meant to disagree that stating a source's POV is NPOV in Wikipedia, it is NPOV, which is why articles on political parties can state their respective ideologies and still be neutral. You say an explanation was lacking, but I don't know what was absent. Or you're agreeing that your addition was violative, in which case you're asking me to toss Wikipedia policy out the window, and I'm not.

Sources are key. I hope this answer has been helpful.

Nick Levinson (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very hard to make sense of who said what in the above mixture of comments.

I doubt any such discussion will ever arise on a talk page for a biographical article where editors are challenging the unilateral claims of the article's subject having a brother. Comparing the basis for qualifying Dworkin's rape/victim claims as being self-reported and uncorroborated with the need to corroborate the existence of claims of having a brother is a poor analogy. In one claim, the likelihood of being discovered as a liar is very high, thus creating a significant dis-incentive whereas, in the case of a rape claim, it's virtually impossible to be discovered (particularly when no culprit is even named.) Nonetheless rape claims are recanted all the time and are invented for some of the most trivial of reasons, such as being late for work (see The False Rape Society.) Given Dworkin's penchant for biblical-like theatrics, the demonization of men, and the career she chose, it hardly takes much imagination to see the utility to her in crafting an ostensibly factual, yet entirely fictional, narrative of victimization. Hence we have a case with high incentives for lying and no risk of being caught, which is in sharp contrast to lying about having a brother, which proffers little incentive (unless she claims he was an abuser/pedo/rapist/etc) and is high risk. I'm sure there is a middle ground here where it can be indicated to readers that Dworkin herself related her narrative of victimization without outright implying she was probably lying (by added "allegedly" immediately before the claim) and stating those claims as factually verified truth. Dworkin's vilification of men is almost second to none in radical feminism and, depending on how you view that, she may have been an extraordinary victim throughout her entire life, as she claims, or just a cynical drama-queen inventing a history that could be used as a basis for the world-view she liked to profess (ie "all men are rapists.") Which of these two lenses is used to view Dworkin's body of work hinges, in large part, on her expansive claims of being a virtually constant sexual victim. As such, concerns about the veracity of these claims are not going to go away anytime soon.--Cybermud (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree they won't go away, but that doesn't require a compromise. I read her memoir and I don't recall her life being all about her being repeatedly victimized. She experienced a few incidents in her life of the kind most people agree are badly negative, she spoke about them, and drew connections she found in common with other experiences and other women. Probably someone else got sick many more times than were recorded in public records, became a doctor, and was lauded for putting their life experience to good use. (You're right about a brother in the usual case but not in some, such as when the only birth record is whatever is written in the family bible, adoption, migration, and other cases that are rare percentage-wise but occur, especially if we're talking about adults who go their separate ways or die. We generally take their word until doubt has ground.) In a radio interview I heard during her book tour for Intercourse on Barry Farber's program, a caller asked her whether she had ever been abused and she declined to discuss it. Apparently most of those public discussions were not until later; and she was already a well-known author before Intercourse. It is in the nature of sexual crime that it often leaves no evidence that does not depend on the survivor for a statement or for preservation of other evidence (e.g., a jogger was raped in Central Park, New York City, she didn't know who did it, a confessor was convicted, but someone else years later admitted to having done it, backed up by DNA evidence). Lying has happened and will again but we need more than that statistic. Whether someone else, including judge or juror, believes or disbelieves the complainant is separate from whether the event happened. If there's evidence of fabrication by her beyond others' belief that it was in her interest to lie, that's important. If we reported what was in various people's interest to do and wrote all articles as if they may have done many more things than we know of, we'd be wading through articles several times longer trying to pick out what they did, especially for famous people. Imagine what would happen if we did that with Presidents, Queens, candidates, and artists. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Article needs more quotes

Really would be useful too add or summerise more of her more notable ones and perhaps make them more visible. the only two highlighted ones are relatively uncontroversial and flattering (and need to be made more concise)--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Which quotes are you talking about and are they out of context in the larger article? What we absolutely do not want is a "quote section". That's exactly what Wikiquote is for. wikiquote:Andrea Dworkin is quite extensive, and I feel, well-balanced. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

TLDR

If I wanted a book on Andrea Dworkin, I'd go buy one. Why is this so endless? I hope someone creates a simple english article about her. Also, before you get mad, realize I'm making an observation about the quality of this article and that's what this page is for. Assume good faith; this article really needs to lose some weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.57.18 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the right approach. Throw out the sloppy, never-ending article, and rewrite dispassionately. I see now it has again been larded up by worshipful and long-winded hagiographers; the same ailment it has suffered from for 7 years. Mare Nostrum 06:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Mare Nostrum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mare Nostrum (talk • contribs) 09:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrea Dworkin was a writer whose books were translated into several languages and when she died I heard about it over the BBC first, even though I live in the nation where she lived. Her contribution to modern feminist thought, especially through her books, speeches, and activism, was major. As a result, an article about her is likely to have a lot of content. As long as the content is nontrivial, well-sourced, and within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, length is not a problem until it reaches somewhere around 100KiB, and then only because of browser and download time limitations. If you have specific suggestions about how to trim, please post or propose, but deletion of appropriate content or writing that is so compact that it is hard to comprehend would risk being reverted or edited. If reorganization would make it more readable, such as in the lede, post or propose specifics. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh there's no doubt that it would be reverted; that was never in question. We know! The meandering article should be 1/3 the current size. Mare Nostrum 06:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I doubt the entries on Dostoevsky or Dickens are as long as this one. For the hell of it, I checked the article on Shakespeare, a man who is agreed to be the greatest and most influential writer in the history of the English language, and the entry on Dworkin is shorter than the Shakespeare entry by an insignificant amount. The notion that she was influential enough to merit an entry of such length is dubious at best and can charitably be called laughable. As for her works being translated into several languages, that can be said about numerous non-entities whose lives merit barely a paragraph on Wikipedia. As for hearing about her death on the BBC before it was reported in the US, that should tell you all you need to know about the "profundity" of her impact outside of the salons of Europe. Moreover, it is not usual practice for every single mention of an individual's name (for instance Catharine MacKinnon)to link to an entry on that individual. Her contribution to modern feminist thought was major? Could have fooled me. Aside from a few attempts to pass laws based on her censorsh... I mean anti-pornography crusade, she seems to have had no lasting impact on anything, except maybe the ground on which she waddled.74.141.152.194 (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Dworkin on After Dark.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dworkin on After Dark.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Dworkin on After Dark.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Long" quotes are necessary, in this case.

This subject is a perfect example of the fact that sometimes "long" quotes are necessary. The quotes are the size they need to be. Futurepower(R) (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Weight?

From the picture it would seem likely that her weight, and all its ramifications and implications, might play no small part in her history and outlook.

Can the article bear adding a little more substance to this aspect of her views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.184.246 (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of only two kinds of sources on point: those representing her critics who criticized her for her weight plus her feminism and thus would be critics of her work regardless of her weight, and typical critics are probably represented in the article anyway; and a comment by her husband that her ill health was the result of her work, especially her last book, on which she was still working when she died and which I think has not been published, and I don't think even that comment was specifically about her weight. By the way, she was not always large; one off-Wikipedia photo and another seem to show her as relatively thin in young adulthood, which is about when she probably formed many of her views, so there may not be much of a case anyway, and there's a good argument, at least in feminist discourse, that it's irrelevant, making sourcing all the more necessary, or such content would likely be challenged or deleted. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

wildebeest

what a fat, disgusting pig. She certainly adds credence to the theory that feminists are fat, ugly women who can't get a decent guy and thus who are angry because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.156.144 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

edits that were sought on Woman Hating, porn critique, interpretation, backpedaling, & anti-porn debate

I've just deleted some comments from inside the article because they were editorial suggestions by unknown editor/s (who can be identified by a search through the article's history, if that's useful) and copied them here, so editors can act on them as anyone sees fit. In the future, editorial suggestions not resulting in immediate edits should be offered on an article's talk page, rather than inside an article.

• When she returned to New York City, Dworkin brought back the "early pieces and fragments" of Woman Hating, and took odd jobs to support herself while she expanded and finished the book. Woman Hating became Dworkin's first published book in 1974. It offered radical feminist analyses of fairy tales and literary pornography, which Dworkin argued presented women as passive, dependent, and defined by a male sexuality that eroticized women's humiliation and submission. It then discussed "gynocidal" expressions of that view of femininity, in the form of European witch-hunts and Chinese foot binding. Dworkin argued that binary gender roles were a myth, expressed in the stories and enforced by the violence, that could and should be overcome, in favor of an "androgynous society", for the sake of women's freedom and human flourishing.
• Her critique of pornography began with Woman Hating, in which she offered a critical analysis of the contemporary pornography, in the novels Story of O and L'Image, and in the counterculture pornographic newspaper Suck. Dworkin argued that pornography presented the adult and explicit development of the sexual politics expressed implicitly for children in fairy tales, and that it portrayed women as passive victims, whose identity was expressed in eroticized degradation, humiliation, or outright violence.
• At the beginning of the paragraph that begins "Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her argument": A couple quick citations would be helpful here; longer stuff can go in the article on the book itself.
• At the end of that paragraph: Is there a good source to cite here for critics' claims that Dworkin's later statements amounted to "backpedaling" or similar? If so, let's have it.
• We could also use some material on the conflicts between Dworkin and other anti-pornography feminists such as Susan Brownmiller, Wendy Kaminer, etc. over whether to use legal activism as a means of combating pornography.

Edit or post as appropriate. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Heartbreak citation pages wrong?

Citation 124, about her saying to Ginsberg "I'd kill you," says it can be found on pages 43 to 47. I downloaded Heartbreak from http://radfem.org/dworkin, and that chapter ("The Fight") is on pages 36 to 39 (inclusive) of the book (which are pages 48 to 51 of the PDF). I checked one more citation to see if there's a constant offset in page numbers: citation 15 refers to pages 107 to 112, but it seems to be about the chapter "Strategy" which I find on page 83 of the book (95 of the PDF), so the offset is not constant; the citations must be referring to a significantly different publication of Heartbreak. It would be great if the citations mentioned the chapter so they work for different publications of the book. And maybe using the version from radfem.org would be better since it's easily accessible for free. I'll see if I find time to do this, but it would probably be much easier for someone who has the publication these citations refer to; otherwise I have to manually search for the chapters which the page numbers here refer to. 2A02:908:C32:4740:221:CCFF:FE66:68F0 (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have the book and can verify the page numbers, hopefully tomorrow. Kaldari (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Before we cite the radfem.org website, do they have copyright permission to offer those texts (consider that, as of a few minutes ago, Amazon still sells new copies of Heartbreak)? If not, we can't link to that site, because it would be facilitating copyright infringement.

If I have to check the source, I probably can, but it's not handy.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I checked my copy of Heartbreak and it looks like the current page numbers are correct. My edition is the 2002 Basic Books edition (paperback). I have no idea if there are other physical editions or not. Kaldari (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

a prostitute or a prostituted woman, as agency matter

I wrote of Dworkin in the lead as "a prostituted woman" and an editor changed it to "a prostitute" as a "tweak" to "add ... normal English".

It is normal in English, but largely from male consumers' viewpoints, to refer to such women as prostitutes. However, a point raised in radical feminism, including by Dworkin, is one of agency, i.e., whether such women really have much career choice, or are forced into it by circumstance and the demands of men. That is, the women have been prostituted in order to support themselves. Thus, "prostituted woman" is the label that more closely tracks Dworkin's views and is still clear as to what means of financial support is meant.

Unless the consensus is against, I plan to restore the wording. I'll wait a week for any response.

Nick Levinson (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It is normal in English for everyone to refer to someone who accepts money for sex as a prostitute. Prostitutes typically call themselves prostitutes - so far as I know. You are of course perfectly entitled to hold radical feminist views, just as other editors are perfectly entitled to reject such views. There is no reason an article about Andrea Dworkin should be written to reflect her views, rather, it should be written in accord with WP:NPOV, so as not to promote her views or anyone else's. Please do not change the wording back to "prostituted woman" without agreement. I suggest you wait to see what views other editors express. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality requires reflecting sources, often including biased sources, and, as far as I know, all of the information about Dworkin having been in prostitution came from her, so it would reflect her views. Nor does neutrality oppose an effect of promoting views; when we write about political parties, our summaries have precisely that effect as a direct consequence of reporting what reliable sources say about the subject. On prostitution, other women may call themselves prostitutes but this article isn't about prostitutes in general, but about Dworkin alone. If we were writing about planet Earth's most horribly destructive person (alive or dead) with the most horribly murderous views explicitly stated somewhere, I would still expect Wikipedia to state that person's major views along with what other sources say about that person and their views. I appreciate the suggestion; I thought a week would be helpful to editors. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality decidedly does not require repeating anything that a person says about himself or herself. Dworkin may have chosen to call herself a "prostituted woman", but that does not mean that Wikipedia has to call her that: "prostitute" will do fine. If it was relevant for some reason, then we could quote her calling herself a "prostituted woman", but that probably wouldn't be important enough for the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with the article stating that Dworkin worked as a prostitute, but I don't think it's important enough to put in the lead, especially without any context. Kaldari (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Holes in this article

The recent GA reassessment led me to reread this article, and frankly I don't think it does a good job of covering Dworkin's writing or impact. Instead, it focuses mainly on Dworkin's personal history and criticism + defense of her more controversial views. There is no analysis of Dworkin's impact on modern feminism (other than listing a handful of feminists that Dworkin directly influenced) and almost no discussion of the issues that Dworkin wrote about besides pornography, such as rape and violence against women. Most of the sources are newspaper articles or Dworkin's own writing, despite the fact that there are hundreds of academic books and journal articles that discuss Dworkin and her work. Basically, I feel like the article as a whole is shallow and unbalanced, although it does cover some areas in detail. Frankly, I don't think it's up to current GA standards, but I'll leave that for others to judge. I realize that I should JUSTFIXIT, but I doubt I'll have time to any time soon. Kaldari (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine idea; but I, too, am short of time. What you're suggesting could easily become a bunch of Wikipedia articles, so I'm not sure even how to handle the sheer quantity. Liberals tend to be influenced by radicals but deny it, which limits the ability to trace the influence, but if sources are out there on this, even if added to here piecemeal, that sounds great. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

summaries on speculation that never got into the article

No, I did not add anything to the article based on speculation. Summaries have to be short, but I didn't realize my summary had to be written even more clearly. What I did was edit because the content I removed was unsupported and I speculated on a contradictory explanation for the known information. But I did not add speculative information to the article. The diff shows how the editing was done; one phrasing was replaced with another, and the diff shows the exact change. Nothing in the new phrasing was based on speculation. The advice not to "place speculation of any kind in the lead" was adhered to prior to the advice.

The resulting edit, which was not a reverting to the earlier, is acceptable, as was mine. I'm leaving it alone.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Andrea Dworkin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Concerns about the lead have been addressed. No other concerns were raised. Article retains Good Article status. 10:58, 17 March 2016 Kaldari

I believe this article does not fall under good article criteria as it strays from WP:LEAD, one of the manual of styles required in good articles. It states that a lead section serves as "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". This particular article is relatively large, but its lead section hardly summarises any of its contents, with only a few broad points and facts, such as a couple of books written by the article's subject, as well as some of the movements she followed. I believe once the lead section is fleshed out with more information from the article, the article will fall under good article criteria. BlookerG ^talk 01:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if the lead discussed her work on rape and violence against women, not just pornography. Dworkin was one of the first people to discuss rape openly as a feminist issue, as previously it was a taboo subject even for feminists. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely the lead could use some fleshing out, but it strikes me as rather counter-intuitive to open a GA reassessment on that basis alone. I'd recommend you open a thread about this on the talk page; you're much more likely to gain consensus and attention to the issue there than here. Or just WP:BEBOLD and add the content in yourself; I very much doubt anyone would oppose it in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I expanded the lead. But using that alone and in a rush (not waiting for response) for a reassessment of GA status increases other editors' workloads, because then we have to deal with both the lead and the reassessment, and is not helpful. Tagging the article was a good idea and editing yourself, since that would not have required research, would have been just as good an idea, perhaps depending on how much of your time was available. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@BlookerG: This has been pending for several months. Any additional thoughts or can we close this? Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't got much more to add to this, so I think it would be best to close it. Sorry about inactivity. BlookerG ^talk 18:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)