Talk:Andrea Dworkin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrea Dworkin article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 30, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
About archives
Talk:Andrea Dworkin/Archive 1: 28 March – 4 May 2005; Talk:Andrea Dworkin/Archive 2: 27 May 2005 - 30 April 2007

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

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)