Talk:Adrienne Rich

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Arpilone.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

opinion in article

"Increasingly militant, Rich and Conrad hosted anti-war and Black Panther fundraising parties at their apartment; however, rising tensions began to split the marriage, and Rich moved out in mid-1970, getting herself a small studio apartment nearby."

Increasingly militant comes from an opinion about her from an outsider, not herself. The complete bit said increasingly militant feminism. It also contradicts the anti-war sentiment in the sentence and also leads to the idea that the Black Panthers were militant since it is out of context. The original article does not tie these things together. Increasingly militant Feminism as an opinion was about why she divorced, not about her hosting fundraisibg parties. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.111.223 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by your comment. The sources given suggest there was a connection between Rich's increasing radicalism and the dissolving of her marriage. One can be anti-war and militant/radical. According to the Oxford dictionary, 'militant' means "favouring confrontational methods in support of a political or social cause". This aptly describes Rich and the Black Panthers. I'm not sure what change you are suggesting. Anna (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I remember several years ago editing exactly this section because the reliable sources I consulted did not make any connection between Rich's politics and the end of her marriage. Looking at it now, I think there are two concerns -- the implication about their marriage, and the term "militant" itself. As I look back at the sentence I wrote, I agree with the original poster here that it implies a logical link and an opinion which are not supported by the sources. I saw some references to infidelity as a cause of their separation, but without specifics; I thought this was prurient detail and attempted to write something purely factual about when it happened. I've made a small edit now to further break the two ideas apart and to remove the editorializing language "militant," which has a strong connotation. Hosting dinner parties doesn't seem like a violent or confrontational political act to me, and many of the Black Panthers' actions were not militant. If anyone finds a source which directly calls Rich "militant", they could cite it. Or if anyone has a source which links politics to the end of their marriage.... well, I guess you could add that, but it feels a little gossipy and unencyclopedic to get into a blame game around a separation. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you checked the given refs? Anna (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds that evidence of independent notability of the essay has been presented, and that the topic can't readily be discussed within the biography. Klbrain (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The article on Rich's 1980 essay, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence fails WP:NBOOK and should be merged into this article. Adrienne Rich is nowhere near size split territory, and could easily accommodate a section on her essay. Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Notify: creator and all users having 5% or more of added text: @Hannakay, Shortie9080, Vroney18, and The Vintage Feminist: Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Notified projects: Women writers, Feminism, Poetry, LGBT studies, Biography. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Don't merge – The fact that "Adrienne Rich is nowhere near size split territory" is not an argument for merging. WP:NBOOK is an essay rather than policy and Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence is an essay and there is nowhere within the article that claims it is a book. Articles on essays are not prohibited and there are lots, see Category:Essays. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I would delete or severely delete the essay article. Most of it is OR. Anna (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge – I think WP:NBOOK is a WP:SNG, it specifically addresses non-book publications, and I don't think Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence would survive an AfD. Adrienne Rich could totally use a "Significant works" section, and this essay could be included in that section, along with other works. Leviv ich 19:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment – Not sure if I get a vote as nom; but I support a merge for the same reason as Levivich pointed out: I don't think it would survive an Afd, and I saw no reason to go that route when a merger makes more sense. A merger would not be hindered by the main article's already being too large and likely to be split again. Also, WP:NBOOK is not a Wikipedia Essay, it is a Guideline which documents a best practice that has been accepted by the Wikipedia community. If interpreted under NBOOK, it's not clear that Rich's essay passes the Threshold standards. Her essay is one of twelve published in the Summer 1980 issue of Signs, and the simple fact of inclusion there is not sufficient to confer notability. If the essay is not interpreted under NBOOK, then I suppose notability devolves to the GNG. As good as this article is (I have both some of her poetry and her essays), that's not enough to make every published essay notable enough for a standalone article. As the essay Existence ≠ Notability says, Don't create a standalone article on a topic that can be described briefly in another article. Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge per Livivich and nom; also in the process it will be easier to fix the other issues with that article. Crossroads1 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't merge, Plenty of sources, enough surely to satisfy WP:GNG, can turn that article into a gem. Here’s a quick link to Google Scholar where more sources can be found. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Do not merge. This is a famous, classic article with tons of excellent coverage and countless sources that note how influential it is. Why on earth would we merge it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Merge very few essays are independently notable, and this looks to be no exception. buidhe 03:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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

White feminism?

White feminism is discussed in many of Rich's works, and it might be worth discussing in this page. JointCompound (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: added a section on Rich's views on racism.