Talk:Germaine Greer/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Lead

Germaine Greer (born January 29, 1939) is a writer, broadcaster and retired academic, who is widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century.

She is the author of several highly acclaimed books. Her ground-breaking The Female Eunuch became an international bestseller when it was published in 1970, turning Greer overnight into a household name, and bringing her both adulation and criticism. I am removing the claims that Greer is "...widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices..." and "..several highly acclaimed..." because they are clearly weasel word statements. I am not saying that they the statements are false, merely that they are unreferenced. Please see WP:AWW --Surturz 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Surturz, this is not weasel wording at all. Greer is almost certainly the most significant feminist voice of the 20th century, never mind one of them. And her books are indeed highly acclaimed. It seems a little WP:POINT-ish to ask for references for claims that are so obviously correct. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't keep reverting, please. This is a long-standing intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is arguable. More significant than Naomi Wolf? More significant than Simone de Beauvoir? Who says? cites please, it is not too much to ask. I'll revert again in 24 hrs if cites can't be found. --Surturz 12:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to take this seriously. You think Naomi Wolf is more significant in the feminist movement than Germaine Greer? They are not even in the same league. Anyway, the text has "one of the most...", so there's space for Greer and Wolf, if you insist. Grace Note 08:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


She only has one acclaimed book. Read her publications as described on Wikipedia. No other book receives acclaim. Indeed it appears the reverse - they are heavily criticised. And there are many more significant feminist voices. But, in any event, do not use absolutes. State is it arguable - but then cite appropriate authorities. 60.226.76.41 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
"So obviously correct" - I'm flabergasted - it is so obviously wrong. Just read the article. Chicago8 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
More to the point - read the Wikipedia article on Feminism. There are some 15-20 references to well known writers and voices on Feminism. There is no mention of Greer. Comment1 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Slim, you state you believe she is the most significant voice of the 20th century. The weight of opinion and evidence is quite clearly against this. Do not change the fair and balanced approach now taken. How do you answer her absence from the feminist page. Chicago8 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No other book receives acclaim on the Wikipedia page. This article says the following: Second book (9 years later) "was published in 1979" – no other comment. 1984 book describes Greer's theme; the only comment is "The book consequently attracted a great deal of criticism." No acclaim. 1986 book on Shakespeare was "published" no other comment. A collection of newspaper and magazine articles written between 1968 and 1985; no comment there. 1989 book, "a diary and travelogue"; The Guardian said "her writing she was projecting her relationship with him onto all other men"; no acclaim there. 1991 book, New York Times said "brilliant, gutsy, exhilarating, exasperating fury of a book", which seems mixed, and perhaps that is acclaim, but I don't think so. 1995 and 1999 books described. No comment there. 2003, an art history book about the beauty of teenage boys, The Guardian "alleging that Greer had appeared to reinvent herself as a 'middle-aged pederast.'" No acclaim there. Summary: do not state there is acclaim without quoting an authority, and then quote the authority. It should not be a leading statement. 130.102.0.178 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


This is undoubtedly a controversial book - I looked up the Publishers review and the use of words such as searing, landmark and shockwaves all seem more appropriate and accurate. Perhaps this quote below plus one full critique is more constructive and will allow readers of the wiki page to draw their own conclusions?

I am not sure if the publisher's review is appropriate, can anyone advise me? If it is OK can someone offer an equivalent critique? (All I found were readers reviews on Amazon)

Synopses & Reviews Publisher Comments:[1] The clarion call to change that galvanized a generation.

"When Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch was first published it created a shock wave of recognition in women, one that could be felt around the world. It went on to become an international bestseller, translated into more than twelve languages, and a landmark in the history of the women's movement. Positing that sexual liberation is the key to women's liberation, Greer looks at the inherent and unalterable biological differences between men and women as well as at the profound psychological differences that result from social conditioning. Drawing on history, literature, biology, and popular culture, Greer's searing examination of women's oppression is a vital, passionately argued social commentary that is both an important historical record of where we've been and a shockingly relevant treatise on what still remains to be achieved."

Slim - if you are going to claim she has written several acclaimed books, reference the acclaim. This discussion page indicates the opposite. You cannot made such bold claims without backup. The page article itself indicates the level at which her subsequent publications are regarded. See her publicaions section. Comment1 01:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, will you please stop removing that material from the lead? It is insane to pretend she was not one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century, and to counter your WP:POINT, I just added a source. Yet still you remove it! It's very disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim - First the source you provided did not say that. The source regarded her with contempt for defnding female genital mutilation. Second the comments above establish there is no other acclaim. Third, please read the discussion above - I said "More to the point - read the Wikipedia article on Feminism. There are some 15-20 references to well known writers and voices on Feminism. There is no mention of Greer." Comment1 07:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, the "source" you use mentions Greer once. Here are the two paragraghs from your source - "Was it before or after September 11 that thinkers of the Left - for feminism was a movement of the Left - decided that racism was a far more serious crime than sexism? When did cultural sensitivity trump women's rights? Was it about the time that Australian feminist Germaine Greer defended the practice of female genital mutilation because, as she pointed out, Western women put studs through their nipples and labia?

Consider this: a struggling, screaming little girl is held down by several people (usually women) while another woman cuts through her clitoris and inner labia, with the intention of ensuring this girl will never experience sexual pleasure; and the world's most famous feminist, to whom much is owed, I don't deny, can compare this practice to adult women choosing, for whatever silly reason, to decorate their sexual parts with metal. The UN estimates that three million girls are mutilated every year. It has lately been warning against the medicalisation of the practice: as societies develop, it is being carried out by health professionals, which doesn't make it less of an abuse." Comment1 07:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the source with one that's less ambiguous. I don't share Greer's views on female "circumcision", nor do I rate her as an intellectual, but that doesn't mean that she is not a front-rank feminist, a household name. Please quit this ridiculous POV pushing. Grace Note 08:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether you call her significant or notable is merely a matter of semantics. I was really only conerned with the acclaimed books part, and thanks to you for changing that part. However, the source prior to your change was completely bogus. Well done in changing it. I agree it had been completely wrong. Comment1 12:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

20th Century?

"feminist of the 20th century" - should "of the 20th century" be removed? She's still active in the 21st, and her date of birth makes it pretty clear she wasn't around before the 20th.

Disagree - she is hardly an important feminist in the 21st century. The zenith of her influence as a feminist was in the 1970s. --Surturz 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

The recent edits (8 March) whilst POV were very accurate. But note that to be included, they should be properly referenced. 130.102.0.178 08:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK so I may have been a bit POV in my recent edit. But the article does lack any sort of cohesive commentary on her influence, either in the 1960s and 70's, where she is largely agreed to have been very influential, or in the 21st century, where she is largely agreed to be irrelevant and antagonistic. I stand by the accuracy of what I wrote. She's defended female genital mutilation and football gang-rapists for god's sake, how on earth is that feminist?! I recall reading commentary to that effect, I think it was in the Australian in the days after Steve Irwin's death, and another by Janet Albrechsten on how her recent comments and actions have been massively anti-feminist. I'll look for the article when I can be bothered. ABVS 09:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Just remember Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.--cj | talk 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
ABVS - I agree with you 100%. But you simply need to reference them, such as quoting the article from the Australian. The problem is there will be a range of Greer supporters who will censor statements unless it can be truly backed up. 130.102.0.178 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. You did cite the Australian newspaper as authority. Perhaps it would be better to cite the actual book that it refers to. But, I think you comments are absolutely correct and this article completely supports it. I would support the reinstatement of the comments. Greer has shown by the demonstrated acts and behaviour in the Wikipedia article that after the 1970s she is (to use your words) "antogonistic" and "anti-feminist". I will reinstate part of it - but I think elsewhere. Well researched.

130.102.0.178 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the reference part so I put it back. Before this person removes it again; explain why. Both the biography within the article and the Australian newspaper support the statements. They state referenced facts, 203.45.228.42 13:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo?

Anyone have a link to a usable photo of Greer? --Surturz 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we've tried to get one from her agents, but with no luck so far. The only one they've sent us belonged to someone else. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
So Wikipedia publishes a photo almost certainly taken and published without her permission, and refuses to display a photo that her agents, presumably with her permission, have repeatedly and freely offered. The repeated and scarcely credible excuse is that someone somewhere is selling the same photo, so that means that when it is offered free, Wikipedia can't use it. Wikipedia pythonesque bureaucracy at its best.124.178.238.235 (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Books, appropriateness thereof

What is so special about "The Untamed Shrew" that means it gets its own sub-heading for a single paragraph? Also, forgive me for indulging in a bit of shameless POV, but could it be seen as inappropriate to have a picture of "The beautiful boy" on the page, especially seeing as the boy in question has since voiced his unease over the use of the photo? I mean, if someone were to write a book about how sexually attractive teenage girls are, and that men should go after these sweet young things more often and with more enthusiasm, you'd be lucky to avoid a hefty jail term. ABVS 10:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored.--cj | talk 10:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Fairly pathetic that Wikipedia can't show an image of the author, a much photographed person who does not exactly avoid publicity, while at the same time insist on publishing an image of the abovementioned boy and repeat his statement that he finds the use of the image "distasteful". We would seem to compete well with the best of the gutter journalists. Phaedrus86 11:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Greer

Things to consider:

Assuming word count in Britannica is roughly equal to importance, Greer doesn't rate so highly. --Surturz 14:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't say she was the only or the most important feminist. We say she's regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century. And she is. You've just shown it yourself by the fact she has an entry at the EB, and we have sources who say it too, one of which you removed for some bizarre reason.
Also, please watch the writing. The current lead flows better than the one you wanted to replace it with. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you keep reinstating the Bone article reference in the lead, it says nothing about Greer except that she is an Australian feminist and that Greer tolerates female circumcision. --Surturz 14:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It calls her something like the world's most important feminist, something that was being disputed which is why I added it. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The article does no such thing, you should re-read it. Could you also please quote the part of her Encyclopedia Britannica article that rates her as one of the most important feminists? --Surturz 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"... and the world's most famous feminist, to whom much is owed I won't deny, can compare this to western women who, for whatever silly reason, choose to decorate their private parts with metal". Famous, not important. Bone seems to be saying Greer was once an important feminist, but boy has she lost her relevance. It is an inappropriate source for the lead line.--ABVS 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hollow bone

I notice that a ref name=bone tag is there, but there is no 'original' refname tag. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 20:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs cleaning up. The excessive weight given to denigration and priggish commentary, by people who make a living from this, is inappropriate. Some lines are referenced with links to yet another episode in the Irwin media frenzy and these do not even contain the suppositions presented in the article. To be blunt, this article reeks of compromise to her self annointed adversaries.
☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey Nikita



Sections

I think the Biography section should contain two subsection, "Publications" and "Broadcast media". This could include all the material by and about Greer. The following section (removed) could be merged into those ...

Trivia

{{trivia}}

  • Greer's portrait was replaced by Steve Irwin's at the National Portrait Gallery in early 2007, a move seen as ironic justice by Irwin's supporters in the wake of Greer's comments following his death. Greer branded his portrait "unmanly". [2]
  • Germaine Greer is the subject of a song called "Mother Greer" by Australian band Augie March.[3]
  • Referenced in Bridget Jones's Diary
  • Germaine Greer is quoted in track 1 of Sinead O'Connor's Album Universal Mother. The Track is called Germaine.

... I belive she is primarily notable for own work and as a 'cultural icon'. This information could indicate the extent of her influence and notability. It is not trivial in my view and, with deference to WP:WEIGHT, will help the reader to understand her popularity or notoriety. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

the whole woman

is in the correct case. There are no capitals. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Polyglot?

Does Greer speak any other languages?

- I think just two, English and Bitter Old Irrelevant Hag.

Hmmm, English, without doubt! Bitter old irrelevant Hag... Bitter: maybe, old: certainly, irrelevant: never. If she was irrelevant you'd never have heard of her... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.87.253 (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism

I've added a further reference to Greer's anarchism (I was editing the australian anarchism site and thought it was more appropriately placed here than on that site.) Her anarchism is very important to understand her, and especially it has to be noted that she went beyond the rather shallow libertariansim of the Sydney Push. I'n fairly new here and don't know that I did the referencing right in a technical sense; the interview was published in the Australian literary journal Overland (with Ian Turner, a significant chap in himself) but is archived online.) Jeremytrewindixon 08:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


I was doing some research on Princess Diana,one of the most spectacular woman I have ever known, and was extremely disturbed when reading an article about her. The writer Germaine Greer stated a comment about Princess Diana being a "Devious Moron" and needed all of this attention. Maybe Germaine you are jealsous of not only Princess Diana, but every woman on earth. Is that why you are a feminist?? Princess Diana of couse did not need any attention, she was a Princess and attention came with that territory. You seem to be a smart lady, but with no life of your own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.135.173 (talk) 19:43, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Catholic?

I've removed the apparently ridiculous and unreferenced comment that Greer is 'an avowed Catholic". This would seem to to need a reference to be tolerated for a minute. Jeremytrewindixon 11:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Infamous photo

It's farily well-known that she posed for at least one explicit picture in an Amsterdam publication, later reprinted in Oz magazine. A version of this picture was reprinted in '200 Trips From the Counterculture' published Sept. 2006.

An article in the Daily Mail mentions "the Amsterdam rag that pictured her nether regions" and gives some additional information on her 'raunchy past' in the usual Daily Mail style: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=466772&in_page_id=1879

This article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4171889.stm - on the BBC website also makes reference to her "naked gynaecological pose" for a Dutch sex magazine.

Surely this photo is a significant and well-documented part of her life that merits a mention in the article? I'm sure I could find more sources if necessary.

SteveRamone 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

She discusses it herself in the whole woman, and in earlier interviews. Not with the spin the 'Daily Maul' put on it, but the discussion of the circumstances was mildly interesting. Not sure if there is a citation template for Amsterdam publications, if that is accurate. Cygnis insignis 20:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Famous" rather than infamous I would have thought! Jeremytrewindixon 04:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, exactly. Which is why I was surprised that it wasn't mentioned. Incidentally, last weekend's Guardian (13.10.07) reprinted a more recent - and respectable - naked photo of Germaine in the 'Review' section. It was taken in 1999 by Polly Borland, an Australian photographer.

SteveRamone 02:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakepeare's Wife

I've added a reference to her new book, which is a worth a read by the way. I've also amended the initial description...."retired academic" hardly seems to fit the case on any level; first, just a technical point, if she was dead would one call her a "dead academic". Second, her latest work shows she is still very much on the job, so while she may have retired from teaching that seems less important than her continued scholarship. and while GG has certainly broadcasted she has also done much print journalism; "journalist" seems the proper description. The bibliography is incomplete incidentally, it underrepresents her work in her field, I'll fix it. But the whole article needs to be rewritten, doesn't it? Great photo though. Pity can't use "famous" photo of her minnie as well. Jeremytrewindixon 04:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Criticsm?

Just wondering, considering her views are so radical, why their isnt a part about criticsm's of her.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarquad (talk • contribs) 13:28, 30 November 2007

There are already plenty of critical reactions mentioned throughout the article, in context. Sections containing nothing but criticism are discouraged on Wikipedia. --McGeddon 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed this...

...piece of blatant vandalism

"Later in her life her nose became her most prominent feature which was described as a probiscus lurching out of her face in an attempt to become part of yours. Her nose was specially bought ,through the same plastic surgeory that brought us micheal jackson's face and john howards 'member of parliment', to fit her custom made glasses which allow her to see into the souls of men and destroy them if they have thought masculine thoughts. The glasses were said to have been given to her by alien transexuals whom she may or may not have been having a serious relationship with, but hey it was the 70's who wasn't?" 155.136.80.163 (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (Gavin Bl

Residency in Queensland

I have removed (for the second time) the assertion that Greer announced at a talk in Brisbane that she intended to reside at her property in the Gold Coast hinterland. Below are my reasons.

  1. I, too, was at that talk, and she said no such thing. She did mention the difficulties of securing the structural integrity of the toilet, and it was clear that she spent quite some time there, but she never spelled out any intention to terminate her British residency (where she is still gainfully employed, isn't she?) and to move permanently to Australia. In fact, her connection to this property has been well documented in the press, often in her own articles, for several years. According to those articles, she seems to spend about four months a year there, although she often struggles funding the trip.
  2. The offered reference (Book Launch Bris City Hall 18 Mar 2008) is wholly unsatisfactory:
    1. It is cryptic; what are readers not familiar with Australian abbreviations to make of it?
    2. The date format doesn't follow Wikipedia standards.
    3. Book Launch? Shakespeare's Wife was released in September last year — I know that Australia, and Brisbane in particular, is a bit behind the times, but a book launch six months after its release? In fact, the event was widely advertised as "an author talk and a Q&A session".
    4. It is not a verifiable source.
  3. The item is of no encyclopedic value.

All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can see point 1 is original research, all right "OR", and the other points are silly; I doubt they would be raised as a reason for removing the false info if the info wasn't false (as I accept it is). Interesting example of the problems arising from the OR ban. Jeremy (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. Are you objecting to me removing from the main article that "Greer announced at a book launch in Brisbane on 18 March 2008 that she has moved back to the Queensland Gold Coast hinterland to reside" or are you agreeing? And what is "silly"? Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not objecting, I'm saying that most of your stated reasons for removing the information are not in fact good reasons for removing the information. (For example, that the event was not properly speaking a booklaunch is a reason for rewite not removal.) That you know the information is false is of course a good reason except that in the present case it counts as OR, according to my understanding. Maybe I've missed something here? Jeremy (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If the stament in question had been cited with a verifiable source, I would have formally rewritten the citation. As it happened, I knew it to be wrong. While that is indeed WP:OR, it still trumps (IMO) an un- or poorly-sourced assertion. The remainder of my previously posted reasons simply serves to point out the insufficient nature of this particular contribution by 124.177.128.102 andGizzard01, thus giving more credibility to my removal, which I knew would be met with hints of OR. You're right: I wouldn't have raised them otherwise. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm still new around here and getting things straight. I chafe under the OR rule sometimes, so much stuff out there is "verifiable" but wrong.Jeremy (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When will she die?

Hopefully soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.56.249 (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When will you grow up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.182.192 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.