![]() |
Andrea Dworkin has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | ||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() |
Archives for the Andrea Dworkin talk page |
---|---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
|
Contents |
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.
- Nick Levinson (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "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 [16] by Cybermud. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:57, 15 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)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 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 ([17], 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[[18]]--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)