Talk:Germaine Greer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Alma mater

One's 'alma mater' is the university from which one graduated, thus Melbourne or Cambridge not Warwick in Greer's case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.84.19.88 (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The references in the lead have disappeared, so I have added a -fact- tag. Could SlimVirgin or someone else please restore or replace them? As before I am not saying the claims that Greer is "widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices" are incorrect, merely that they are unreferenced. --Surturz (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On 31 January 2008 and on 1 February 2008, Cloudtwenty (talk · contribs) seems to have gone on an editing spree of biographies, mainly messing up —possibly in good faith, bit nevertheless inept— the distinction between "References" and "External links". That user hasn't edited since.

In the article on Germaine Greer, those references you are asking about disappeared in the first of ten edits by Cloudtwenty on January 2008). There were a great number of changes made in those ten edits, so I think it will take some sifting and consideration how and whether these references can be reinserted. Finding the edits in question took only five minutes, undoing their negative effect will take longer—more than I can spare in the next two weeks; maybe someone else can. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have reinstated the references. --Surturz (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I find it questionable that Greer is branded "widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices" when that is contestable. In fact other contemporary and frankly more widely cited and productive feminists do not have similar elevating phrases in their introduction. I have just gone through my library of feminist books, and not one of them even cites Greer. I would ask that a justification be given why such a phrase is justified in the broader context of second half 20th century feminism rather than just a few citations. I also have issues with 2 of the three citations currently listed. The first to a book review in the guardian by a former student is not sufficient weight to establish the claim. The second is to an article that hardly mentioned Greer and in fact is critical and says nothing to her stature. I cannot check the britannica entry. But given this at least the second reference simple does not verify the claim. I would argue there are signs of NPOV and vanity. 99.118.118.95 (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nationality in LEAD

I was about to edit the lead but came here first. What citizenship does she currently hold? Based on that, we/you/I should correct the lead sentence per wp:mosbio. Thanks! --Tom 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know this too. The article implies that she has been a resident of the UK since 1989. It could be she is a permanent resident, but she may have changed nationality. --Surturz (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have heard her complain about restrictions on her for holding an Australian passport whilst travelling in Europe. She is still in Australia alot, several months a year. She would be eligble for UK citizenship, if she wanted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew9148 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Academic Appointment

Greer's last academic appointment had been as a Professor in the Department of English Literature and Comparative Studies at the University of Warwick.
I get the feeling that I'm going to regret getting involved in this, but since Greer is still a Professor at the University of Warwick I'm going to change the tense of this sentence. AnthonyUK 19:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does someone remove a simple neutral biographical detail after a public announcement by Greer who clearly wants people to know this about her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizzard01 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edited this section to make it clear that she has retired but still retains a position as Emeritus Professor, which is largely an honourary position. Jenafalt (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Upgraded to C-Class (WP: Big Brother)

I have upgraded this article to C-Class as it meets the criteria, the article has a good amount of information but not enough yet for B-Class. More reliable sources would be good to improve the article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism and Marxism

I've added a sentence to main article to effect that Dr Greer has not resiled from her anarchist and communist politics; I've just been listening to her reaffirm them on a tape played an hour ago (recorded last week) on Radio 3CR Community Radio's Radio Mama; and (I'm told)described herself as a "marxist" on Australin Broadcasting Commission's sho Q&A last week. I'm not sure of best way to reference; Radio Mama are going to put "highlights" of the program on their website next week but they don't podcast or do transcripts, they mightn't think Germaine's politics is a "highlight". I'll get a tape but that won't solve the referencing problem. The abc show is available as avideo clip but [not] forever presumably. Anyway I feel it is safe to say that hse has not renounced her revolutionary views, and that is important. But I'd be ahppier with apositive reference.

I've also clarified a bit re "Push" and "Libertarians" and removed silly bit about how Push practiced "polygamy" (if their sexual freedom is to be referred to, which is fine, then it should be an accurate reference, "free love" rather than polygamy) Jeremy (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Typo correct Jeremy (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert that first edit about not retreating from anarchism/communism. What's the point? The article already describes her as such, and why should it be noteworthy if someone does not retreat from a widely known and acknowledged position? Also, the phrase While her writings have been very little to do with ideological labels, is not only ungrammatical but also blatant POV. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you Michael. I think the comment by Jeremy is relevant, although badly worded and ungrammatical. I think Greer's continued self identification as anarchist/marxist is an important fact which should not be neglected in this biography, as it provides a useful paradigm for understanding many of her public comments, speeches and writings, often categorised as 'controversial'. Jeremy - Perhaps you can rephrase it in a better way? There is no reason you should not use the two programs as references for your contribution here in the format: 'Germaine Greer on Radio Mama show, 3CR, broadcast on xx August 2008', 'Germaine Greer on Q&A Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV, broadcast xx August 2008'. Of course if there is a transcript or video/radio podcast online you can link to that to make it easily verifiable, but the fact that there may be no podcast or transcript available does not reduce the verifiability of the sources, it just makes it harder and more time consuming to verify. It does not invalidate the references.--Takver (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold in editing the article - watched the Q&A program, and added two quotes from Greer to the article in keeping with what i think Jeremy was trying to do. I think part of the problem with this biography of Greer is the absence of a section on Greer's politics which is a foundation for much of her comments and public statements, even her feminism. I was struck by her quote that she believed in permanent revolution which is still very much in keeping with the Sydney Libertarianism attitude of permanent protest.--Takver (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section on her current beliefs for now because it does not fit in with the section it was placed in which is 'early life'. The comment does not work in this section as it is all about the 1960s and 70s, so a sudden discussion of 2008 seems out of place. If you really believe that it should go into the article, then it needs to go into another part of the article - perhaps the discussion of her later career, although it does not really fit here either. Jenafalt (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added the 2008 quotes on her political beliefs to the Later Life section for now. As I commented above, maybe the article needs a Political Beliefs section.--Takver (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, two things; firstly "While her writings have been very little to do with ideological labels" is perfectly grammatical english, so far as I can see, speaking as an educated native speaker of english. Tell me what is wrong with it? I don't think you can. You may think it is bad style, which is another question; but to substantiate that you should find a better way of expressing the point. And the point should be expressed and it is by no means POV. Her writings have indeed been very little to do with ideological labels, you can point to no book I think where she ponders the inner and outer meanings of marxism liberalism anarchism or the like. Or even discusses her personal anarchism and marxism, it has to be inferred. She writes about birth-control and female poets and Mrs Shakepeare and the menopause and the overall treatment of women etc. Pointing this out is no more POV that pinting out that she does not write about music.(So far) Its relevance is in part that her relationship to ideological labels is hard to track, a section on her "political beliefs" would not be easy to write. Furthermore it is by no means out of place to remark that her beliefs have persisted; very many people were revolutionary socialists in 1972 but have very different views now. It is in fact not my impression that Greers anarchism and marxism is particularly widely known. So I disagree with Michael pretty thoroughly.

Secondly I'll accept Takver's argument in using the Radio Mama reference, where she reaffirms her anarchism. I now have a CD copy of the interview in any case. I do have a POV in all this, by the way, which may as well be upfront. I am myself an anarchist sympathetic to marxism who admires Germaine Greer. This page needs extensive revision and exapnsion of course, I imagine few will disagree with that. For one thing, as it stands it seems to have an unhealthy obsession with the lady's sex life. Jeremy (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, I am not a native speaker of English — I was born in Germany and spent the last 26 years in Australia. Despite these two handicaps, I think I have a good grasp of English.

Let's parse "While her writings have been very little to do with ideological labels…":

"While her writings have been…" introduces a passive subject; e.g. they might be regarded, dismissed, praised. Instead, the rest of the phrase consists of an infinitive: "…very little to do" which would have required a subject + auxiliary verb, e.g. While her writings have very little to do…. It seems to me, as Fowler put it, you started one sentence and finished another. In my opinion, the phrase ought to be either "While her writings have very little to do with ideological labels…" or "While her writings have been regarded as having very little to do with ideological labels…" which is of course most clumsy.

Let's also briefly inspect the main phrase: "…she has never since publicly retreated…": since? Since when?

As for POV: stating that her writing has very little to do with ideological labels is your opinion, your point of view. Proving the absence of something is notoriously difficult (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). To overcome this evidential problem, Wikipedia has a simple rule: No original research (NOR) — you have to find a source that says so. You mention "she does not write about music". I wouldn't be so sure; she has written about Bob Dylan's lyrics (scathingly).

I also pointed out that her anarchist/communist/Marxist leanings were already mentioned and cited in the article. Whether it's worth mentioning that she still holds those views is debatable — in my opinion it's not, but it's no skin off my nose if others see that differently.

In summary: I considered the edit by 203.87.64.23 from 28 August as vague, unencyclopedic, irrelevant, ungrammatical — that's why I reversed it. The passage has since been reworded, and while I think that "Greer has continued to self-identify as an anarchist or a marxist" is not excatly flowing prose, that statement is supported by a primary source (note that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources). In your edit from 30 August, you re-introduced the unsourced assertion (using a different wording) "In her books she has dealt very little with political labels…". I suggest you revert that edit — the passage would be better without it.

This also raises the question: what's your relationship to 203.87.64.23 who originally introduced this phrase?

Nitpick: the parenthesis after 3CR is unnecessary — that's what a blue link is for.

Regards, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael, no there isn't a passive subject, we are dealing with the verb "to be" here. Compare 1/ "Her writings are very little to do with political labels" ...."to do with" being equivalent to "concerned with" here. A bit more colloquial but meaning the same and as grammatical (and not an infinitive anymore than its synonym "concerned with", the interchangeability proves that). OK? Now 2/ "Her writings were very little to do with...." past tense. But in english as in other languages we have a number of modes of the past tense, for example 3/ "Her writings have been very little to do with.." , which captures the fact that "her writings" is not as yet a closed category. You see? I don't know what Fowler would have thought; but he did have strange views on the Subjunctive and was a defender of the ludicrous "nobs pronoun"....ie he thought we should go around saying "it is I" and "it is they" instead of "it is me" and "it's them". So I doubt that Fowler's opinion, even granting just for a laugh that it supported you in this matter, would be of much relevance. As Alexander Pope remarked "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". My sentence may have been clumsy but it was clear and that should have been the clue to its , um, syntactical integrity. Because clarity is the final test, english has no overriding authority laying down the syntactical law. As you would know from your study of Fowler.

Michael,you write; :Let's also briefly inspect the main phrase: "…she has never since publicly retreated…": since? Since when? Erm...Michael....since the reference just referred to. That is one way we use the word "since". As in "I came to Australia in 1986 and have never since regretted it". Or you could also say "I came to Australia in 1986. I have never since regretted it". You see? Probably, in future, you should refrain from reverting edits on the basis that they are in your view "ungrammatical".

Michael writes: stating that her writing has very little to do with ideological labels is your opinion, your point of view. Proving the absence of something is notoriously difficult (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). No its not just my POV, very obviously. Michael, you demonstrate this yourself by challenging my point that she has not written about music. She has it seems written about the work of Bob Dylan. So, as you apparently recognize, the question of whether she has or has not written about music is a matter of evidence not POV. Just as much, whether she has written on abstract political theory is also a matter of evidence. You are of course quite right that proving a negative is difficult; but neither you nor Wolfowitz (was it Wolfowitz? someone in the White House pushing the waepons of mass destruction lie anyway)) are correct to say that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Actually yes it is, it is just not final proof of absence. The absence of evidence that there is a shark in my bathroom actually is evidence of the absence of a shark in my bathroom. Not final proof of course, as it always possible that there is an invisible and intangible shark called Cyril using my shampoo right now. The fact that the "absence of evidence" line was used in service of a lie might have clued you in that there was something wrong with it. In the case of Germaine Greer, I have read all of her published books except the one on female painters and the new one on indigenous rage. And I've read reviews of both of those. One is about female painters the other is about indigenous rage. None of her published books are about marxism or anarchism etc. It is relevant to mention that in the context of discussing her politics, because it makes clear that the direct sources for such discussion are limited. On the other hand her writings are concerned with (or "to do with") public affairs and so her politics is part of the conceptual underpinnings of her thought and thus important. Remarking on this, the absence of abstract political theory in her books, is no more "original research" than any other general remark that could be made. Such as "her books are written in english, she has written very little in swahili". Which, if she spoke swahili in interviews, might well be a relevant remark to make.

You ask what my relationship to 203.87.64.23|203.87.64.23 is? Identity, Michael (!) I use a public computer and don't always log in.

On the subject of the nitpick.....whatever. I was just trying for clarity and the reader's convenience. Surely one does not want to be hopping backwards and forwards to blue links for every little thing? Don't some people still have slow computers? Anyway, regards, too. And oops I hadn't signed: Jeremy (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick: I wanted to use this and Michael's talk page gives me the perfect opportunity.....Michael, it says there, contrary to your remarks above, that you are a native speaker of english! As well as german! Maybe your problems with the grammar of the verb "to be" are more deep-seated than you realize....:-> best, jJeremy (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy wrote: 'Her writings are very little to do with political labels" ...."to do with" being equivalent to "concerned with" here.'

That's exactly where we disagree; it should be: "Her writings have very little to do with", and "to do with" is not equivalent to "concerned with". Simplest case. Correct: "This has very little to do with her." — not: "This is very little to do with her." nor "This is/has very little concerned with her."

As far as I can see, my view on your original phrasing has been shared by at least one other editor and your re-phrasing makes this discussion obsolete. Your remarks about my grasp of English are condescending, uncalled for, and border on ad hominem attacks; they also prompt me to commend to you Eats, Shoots & Leaves and some fundamental material about the capitalisation of certain proper nouns in English.

It seems you haven't understood Wikipedia's principle of citing sources. I can cite a source for my assertion that GG wrote about Dylan; can you cite a source confirming "the absence of abstract political theory in her books"? If you can, such a remark and its source can be included in an article; same for her not writing in Swahili: if a source says so, it can be used here. Everything else is WP:OR.

You also misplaced the dictum: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It has nothing to with the White House or Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz's boss; Rumsfeld used it, wrongly, to defend his lie about alleged proof of WMDs in Iraq. The phrase is in fact the embodiment of the logical fallacies "negative proof" and "argumentum ad ignorantiam".

Your contributions under two identities might be taken as sock puppetry, especially if you seemingly conduct conversations with yourself. Wikipedia etiquette suggests to divulge such a relation on one's userpage.

To your comments below: I completely agree that there is a lot of irrelevant and marginal stuff in this article and I have in principle no argument with your earlier deletion. However, the normal process is that such substantial modifications are either discussed here first, or that at least an edit summary provides an explanation, especially when the edit comes from an anonymous account. In fact, I wouldn't mind if the whole article was shredded and re-written. As it is, it lacks structure (where is a coherent list of her publications?) and is unnecessarily interspersed with commentary. That the commentary is sourced doesn't make it any better. Less is more. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK...Michael, first the grammar, always of interest derived as it is from "glamour". (Or is it? Will you look it up?) I disagree with you about your "simplest case". 1)"This is very little to do with her" is fine, and so is 2)"This is very little concerned with her". However , not 3)*"This has very little concerned with her". 4)"This has very little to do with her" is also good, of course; to my ear it has a slightly different shade of meaning from 1). One would not necessarily want to say that GG's writings "have" very little to do with abstract political theory....but anyway, Michael, as you rightly say, the discussion is obsolete. My remarks on your command of english are not at all "uncalled for", on the contrary by setting yourself up as a judge of english grammar you did precisely "call for" them. And I would not put too much store in anything called "eats shoots and leaves" (popular punditry on particulars of punctuation I presume?) No offence, Michael, really, but you are not the best person to be the Good English Police.

My source, Michael, for the absence of abstract political theory in Germaine Greer's books is Germaine Greer's books. The "no original research" rule is a good and necessary one, but it necessarily has fuzzy edges because in fact of course any coherent article involves "original research" to some degree; wikilawyers into manipulating rules instead of writing good articles can work those fuzzy edges for some purpose best known to themselves....But in this case I can't see that the edge is so very fuzzy. I mean, if she has published 12 books and you have a list of them then it would be original research to say "she has published 12 books". The research would consist in counting them. Would you be hopping on about that? My remark is further away from original research than that.

As for 'absence of evidence not evidence of absence'; again, yes it is. Cyril agrees with me and suggests I refer you William of Occam and so forth.

I don't use sock puppets but I do sometimes not log in, if you are seriously researching me in hopes of digging up some dirt you really ought to take a cold shower. The stuff I deleted without explanation was a glitch with the computer, not intentional. I'm glad you agree with the eventual deletion.

How about we get back to the article. A section on GG's politics should be written. Since (that owrd again!) you are so sure that it can be written without reference to the absence of direct material in her books, maybe you would like to write the section yourself? Jeremy (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Prats

What is the notability of this sort of stuff: Angela Carter described her as "a clever fool", while former British Conservative MP Edwina Currie called her "a great big hard-boiled prat".[6][opinion ? Jeremy (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, now I have removed the whole section;

Angela Carter described her as "a clever fool", while former British Conservative MP Edwina Currie called her "a great big hard-boiled prat". "[Her] mind provokes us like no other, but for all the wrong reasons," journalist Catherine Keenan wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald.

Where is the interest or notability of this? What did Angela Carter mean? Some British Tory has called her a prat, why is this notable given GG's politics and the tendency of Conservatives to verbal abuse? And who the Hell is Catherine Keenan and what the devil did she mean? From the title of the Keenan article referenced we seem to just be looking at more vulgar abuse. Yawn. Not what people who look up the article are looking for. The only reason why anyone is likely to put these opinions in, so far as I can see, is that they agree with them and are using these three women as ventriloquist's dummies. Is this an example of WP:SYNTH ? I think it may be. "See, a lot of women don't like her!" Jeremy (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have similarly removed the following:

Belinda Luscombe in Time Magazine called Greer "the ultimate Trojan Horse, gorgeous and witty, built to penetrate the seemingly unassailable fortress of patriarchy and let the rest of us foot soldiers in."

...it says nothing, and means nothing. (And in any case it is missing a proper reference for the Time Magazine article). --Surturz (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure Suturz, arguably it puts her into context as aprt of womens' movement. Jeremy (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And again, what is this nonsense:

In 2001, she attracted publicity again for a proposed treaty with Aboriginal Australia. In 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard called her "elitist" and "condescending" after she criticised Australians as "too relaxed to give a damn" and derided her native country as being "defined by suburban mediocrity." Howard called her comments "pathetic".[37]

Since 1990 she has made eight appearances on the British television panel show Have I Got News For You, a record she holds jointly with Will Self. Her most memorable appearance was in 1995 when Ian Hislop quoted Greer's spat with a fellow broadsheet columnist, Suzanne Moore, which included a reference to Moore wearing "fuck me shoes".

Again, the relevance of the fact that right-wing populist John Howard didn't like her? Support for a treaty is very widespread among left and liberal Australians, it is of no particular interest that GG agrees or that Howard abused her for it; what is of interest that she proposed an exclusively aborignal franchise for the Senate as part of such a treaty. "Derided her native land" ? As distinct from "Criticized the Australin people" or the like? POV here I think. Describing her quarrel with Suzanne Moore as a "spat".....why not go all the way and call it a "catfight"? The article as it stands is demeaning and trivializing and misleading. Jeremy (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose what this information is aiming to do is to demonstrate that she is a public and controversial figure - the Prime Minister of Australia wouldn't bother to comment on her opinion otherwise. I think the reference to John Howard should stay in because it demonstrates the significance of her as a popular (or unpopular) figure in Australian culture and society. If the text could be contextualised in this way then I think it should stay in in a limited way. Jenafalt (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the priorities are a proper treatment of Sex and Destiny and a section on her politics. Jeremy (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Popculture References Suggestion

Hello, could someone with authorization consider mentioning in the Popculture References section that her name is directly referenced in Of Montreal's new album "Skeletal Lamping" on the track "Women's Studies Victims"? I would certainly do so if I had the ability. It is a noteworthy and honorable reference - don't let the sarcastic title of the song in any way suggest misogyny or disrespect toward women's studies. I can only offer my own Feminist theory studies as a reference to my personal credibility on the subject as a male, however. But I am honest - I only fear that the title of the song may unfortunately dissuade an editor despite the positive context of the reference within the song. On lyrics sites I have frequently seen equally unfortunate misspellings of the name. The songwriter, Kevin Barnes, would certainly want the reference to be understood. I'm sure he wants interested people like myself to read about Germaine Greer by his pointing a finger in her direction. Thank you for considering my contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpavid (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't think editors will be dissuaded by first impressions, be they favourable or not — there certainly seems sufficient breadth among past editors leaning towards bias of any sort, which in the end tends to achieve some balance.

Second, if you could here provide a paragraph describing the context (band, album, title, author, with Wikilinks where they exist) and citing a source or two, I'm sure an interested editor will take it to the article. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Female Genital Mutilation

An anonymous editor insists that Germaine Greer "defended" genital mutilation of women in "Sex and Destiny' but won't provide a quote; claiming as substantiation only that Dr Greer defended womens right to choose to be circumcized. Very likely she has defended that, most people I suppose would. But it is not what we are talking about is it? The article as it stood carried the clear implication that GG supported the forcible clitorectomy of children. That is false, ridiculous and libellous.....or if it isn't, please provide the quote. As I recall from "Sex and Destiny" GG made some remarks to the effect that the West's obsession with the marriage customs of the Third World was unhealthy and it was blind to its own ugly practices. Speaking as a man who was forcibly genitally mutilated in childhood, yes I was circumsized, I can certainly agree with the second point.

This article is marred by a fascination with (at best) debating with GG and at worst smearing her at every opportunity amounting to WP:SYNTH in places. This article is obviously not the place to smear GG, nor even the place to debate with her. Jeremy (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has a couple of references on this, one from the BBC[1] and one from the New York Times.[2] Both have relevance but the BBC one is better as the Times article is a review and therefore heavily influenced by the reviewers point of view. However, these references clearly support several things:of things are clear:

• The Whole Woman includes a viewpoint by Greer on female gential mutilation;
• That viewpoint was condemned by a UK Parliamentary committee (and by the NYT reviewer);
• The UK Committee described Greer's viewpoint as "simplistic and offensive" and implied that Greer had equated forced cliterodectomies with American teenage body piercing.

So far so good, and there's no problem I can see with a sentence or two outlining the above. What these don't tell us is what Greer actually said in the book. To ensure this section is strictly accurate we should also include details or at least a summary, of Greer's own words. Not so we can express an opinion on whetehr they are right or wrong, but simply so the reader can see the view and the response in context. The BBC and NYT reporting might be breathless hyperbole or sober understatement, but we should let the reader judge that by providing sufficient detail and then leaving it to them.

This isn't an argument to remove the BBC material - its a reliable source and an important issue. Instead, its an argument to expand this section to ensure the article is not giving undue weight to one side of the debate.

I agree with Jeremytrewindixon's second point - that this article like many other BLP's has a tendency to be a repository for every negative comment. This is an inevitable result of daily media coverage which accentuates the negative. The answer seems to me not to remove negative comments but to ensure they are presented in context and not given undue weight relative to how enduring they are. Greer is a leading feminist writer and her views on genital mutilation are likely to be of lasting interest. We should include those views along with both short-and long-term reaction to them, to ensure they are seen in a neutral and complete context.

These are just my opinions - all other views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this section of text from where it was situated in reference to Sex and Destiny as the two references cited discussing the controversy said that it was about the text of the whole woman.

I have also added in that she equated FGM with circumcision (which she does in the book which is sitting here in front of me) in order to give it relevance - the equation of FGM with breast augmentation sounds much more absurd than equating it with circumcision which is also genital mutilation of a child which is widely accepted and practiced in 'western' society. In the book she discusses body modification and mutilation of bodies much more broadly (including a discussion of episiotomies) and using text in the article that argues that she equated it only with breast augmentation distorts her argument. Jenafalt (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thing is Eurylas, the article as you have restored it clearly does imply that Germaine Greer supports the forcible clitorectomy of children. You agree that the UK Committee implied that, and clearly that implication is allowed to stand in the article. If false, that is quite simply a libel. I believe it is false, anyone who says it is true has an onus to provide proof. Until that proof appears that libellous implication must not be allowed to stand. Do you see?

More generally on the "every negative comment" question, I don't think the problem is solved by supplying replies to every negative comment etc. That turns the article into a debate between GG's supporters and detractors, which is not what an encyclopedia article is. Some of the negative comments are remarkably petty, I can't think of any other public figure who attracts such a buzz of petty trivializing criticism, having to respond to it all just compounds the problem. Of course GG is a controversial figure and that has to be noted, what doesn't have to be noted is the views of every hack journalist and politician. In Sex and Destiny for example GG took an interesting position on abortion, that might be worth noting. Her comments on the culture of the birth control movement are important and controversial, I am responsible for noting them in the article. Her attack on the IUD and her advocacy of the Dutch cap as birth control methods are of practical interest, even her defence of anal sex. But that some UK Committee mistook (or pretended to mistake) her warning against self-righteous cultural imperialism for advocacy of cutting up little girls minnies is of less interest except so far as it sheds light on the sort of people who get onto UK committees, and when their misunderstanding is allowed to be presented as fact it is libellousJeremy (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with your second point. Controversial figures attract controversial headlines, and there's no reason to include or respond to every breathless media report.

I don't agree with your first one - as a leading feminist author Greer's views on female circumcision have a relevance which her views on unrelated topics (like, say football or impressionist paintings) do not. If she has an opinion on female circumcision it should probably be included in the article. If that opinion is contested by other responsible parties (not tabloids, but supposedly credible and sober bodies) then that criticism also deserves inclusion to put her remarks in context.

I don't have a copy of The Whole Woman so I can't say exactly what it is Greer was trying to convey. Someone copyedited the previosu sentence to note that Greer made a connection to breast augmentation - it is this sentence that should ber eferenced from greer's work, and changed if it doesn't accurately convey her point. The next sentence, which refers to criticism of that view, is drawn directly from a reliable source and aims to give reaction to greer's views. We are doing readers as much of a disservice by removing negative reactions reported in reliable soruces, as we are by including negative reactions in unreliable ones.

As a compromise I've changed the quote to the other onethe parliamentary Committee used. If the problem with the first quote is it implies Greer said something she didn't, then the use simply of the "simplsitic and offensive" one should address that - this doesn't imply anything about Greer's actual comments and simply gives the Committee's view. Let me know if this addresses the issue - if not let's think of something else to include.

Sorry the above is a bit longwinded- is late here and the precision of my wording has declined as the hours pass by. Euryalus (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevant section article is I think OK as it now stands, no doubt it can be improved. Germaine Greer discussed these issues in _Sex and Destiny_ originally, my knowledge of her views on the subject is based on that book which I have read, not on the whole woman which I haven't yet. I absolutely agree that GG's opinions on genital mutilation are of interest, my concern is that they not be misrepresented. One problem is that "female circumcision" covers a very wide field, there is literally an operation which is analogous to male circumcision, but it is often a euphemism for practices ranging through clitoectomy through to excision of the external genitals and infibulation. An extended quote from GG on the subject would be appropriate, surely? Jeremy (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I now have a copy of Dr Greer's actual comments in the the whole woman. Thery are pretty much what I thought they were from readinf sex and destiny and other works......It provokes in my mind the question, why would anyone ever think a UK (or any) Parliamnentary Committee was a "reliable source" ? How much garbage do they have to talk to dispel that illusion? -Jeremy, haven't signed in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.49.207 (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful Boy

Furthermore if one goes to the source on Bjorn Andresens alleged anger about being on the cover of GG's book, http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2003/oct/16/gender.film, one can see that it is a beat up by the journalist. Bjorn was 48 in 2003 and in no danger of being recognised from the picture. He felt "used" by the entertainment industry in general (rather than GG in particular), in part no doubt because he was "between jobs" and because he was sick of being thought homosexual. It is clear enough from the article that it was the journalist who kept on referring to GG and eliciting grumpy repsonses from Bjorn.....the photograph was taken in the course of his modelling work many years ago and GG bought the photo from the photographer in the usual way. Wikipedia uses exactly the same photo to illustrate the article on Bjorn! Probably if someone asked him he'd say he felt "used" by wikipedia as well! Come on, folks, more objectivity and less WP:SYNTH on GG. No one doubts she is acontroversial figure, many articles could be filled up with criticisms of her and her views, but this article is about her not about her critics. Jeremy (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced Andresen's concerns about being on the book cover are relevant enough for inclusion at all. The book is not about him, and the fact the publisher didn't ask him first is careless but not relevant to Greer or her views. He's concerned about sexual objectification of young males, which is relevant to the book's contents, but as Jeremy points out above he doesn't relate that to Greer so much as to his experiences after appearing in Death in Venice. Including the views of a relative unknown with no particular relevance to the book and limited invovlement in the wider issue is perhaps to give them undue weight.

However, if we do include Andresen's views, I'd suggest something like - "The boy pictured on the cover was Björn Andresen, who has expressed unhappiness about the use of his image without permisssion." Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Princess Diana

The following was the reference to the GG's comments on Princess Diana, apparently by someone who doesn't know what "guileless" means:

In August 2007 Greer made comments regarding Princess Diana, calling her a "devious moron", a "desperate woman seeking applause", "disturbingly neurotic" and "guileless".

I think there should be a reference to GG's remarks about Princess Diana, preferably referring to her articles rather than to the excerpts of some journalist (I almost said "some ignorant and venal journalist" but that is unfair to some of them). I think wikipedia editors in general need to put less faith in the popular press as a source of either information or worthwhile opinion. Meant to be an encyclopedia not a set of press clippings. Jeremy (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits resulted in the net loss of two references from the list. There were 60 before, but now there are 58.--Joshua Issac (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And? Jeremy (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheist activist

Why is Germaine listed as an 'atheist activist' as one of the categories? I know that she considers herself an atheist so I can see the point of her being listed in the category of 'Australian atheist', but has she really been an activist in this area? I have seen no evidence of this. Does anyone else have any evidence of her activism in this area? Surely it is more than just saying you are one. Thanks Jenafalt (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

lacks citations, removed pending same. cygnis insignis 14:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointless over-referencing of press and politicians' criticisms

Its a problem which afflicts this article, (I'm guessing often because people want to ventriloquize their own views?). Dr Greer has controversial views on most subjects she takes up, and I'm certainly not suggesting that should be concealed. But in an article about Germaine Greer the priority surely is to accurately state her views and actions, not to set up a file of hostile and often inaccurate press clippings? Case in point, I've just removed:

Greer's pessimism about the supposed obstacles faced by women were rejected by the New York Times, who instead pointed to her "insistence on seeing developments most feminists would embrace as signs of progress as symptoms of some vague male conspiracy".

Just for a start, this does not tell us who in the New York Times who put this conventional (and as it happens inaccurate) opinion into those words, or when, or the context, so it is at best a trash reference......but even leaving that aside what is the point of it? Surely the space should be taken up outlining Dr Greer's views? that is what people presumably consult the article for, not for the views of some journalist apparently not even significant enough to be worth naming. 203.206.182.51 (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

block quote from the whole woman in introduction

Thanks for the changes you have recently made to the article, which have been helpful. However, I think that the addition of the large quote on Greer's views on feminism does not sit well at this point in the article. It is a good quote, but I think it is too long for this part of the article which is should be a general introduction to Greer before getting into the specifics later in the article. Maybe we could put in a new section in the article which spoke about Greer's views on feminism. Otherwise, maybe the quote needs to go in a specific section on the whole woman. What do you think? Jenafalt (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are probably right, a new section on GG's place in the controversies within feminism is needed. I think though there still should be some reference to this in the introduction. (Jeremy in a rush and not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.159.23 (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal Issues/Jump Up Whitefella

The section on GG's remarks on aboriginal issues is much in need of revision and expansion, being aparently culled from press clippings as it stands. Her essay Jump Up Whitefella (JUW)was a major (and of course controversial) statement on the way forward for relations between the indigineous and settler communities of Australia and it is always an issue GG has been engaged with. I have a copy of JUW somewhere.... Jeremy (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentone, likely vandalism

I think the following is vandalism, though admittedly not 100% sure (even GG can make silly jokes), but the reference is hard to check and this particular silly joke would be so extremely uncharacteristic and is so irrelevant to the context it is given that I feel justified in removing it.

As part of her research she discovered a large proportion of the feminist movement wanted to neutralize all place names in Australia in order to represent a larger cross-section of society and to remove the focus from men. Greer lobbied the City of Dandenong in 1974 to have the name of her home suburb Mentone changed to "Tone".

Simpson's reference

Apparently, in the Treehouse of Horror story "Murder He Wrote", Sideshow Bob says that he wants to finish reading Greer's books.

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m207/minespatch/DeathSimpsonsPage.png

Is this under "popular culture", or is this unnecessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.164.103 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Under popular culture surely!119.225.38.166 (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is inappropriate trivia, if it's just a character saying her name. You may as well update the book article to say that Sideshow Bob wanted to read a book. --McGeddon (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

See here! --Surturz (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Greer on toilets

I removed these edits from the article:

"Greer shocked the literary and artistic world on 24 July 2009 during the filming of BBC Two's art symposium Newsnight Review with her claim that 'no one goes to the toilet in novels.' Her statement referred to the notion of censorship throughout literary history. Countering such a generalisation, The Guardian created a list of novels that 'feature or are majorly concerned with the act of micturation', including Joyce's Ulysses, Anthony Burgess' Enderby quartet and Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. Greer has subsequently withdrawn the comment as a 'greivous oversight'. She was branded an 'awful embarrasment' by her peer Salman Rushdie."

I removed them because I didn't feel that they were central to an already extensive discussion of Greer's career and they were not referenced. Also I couldn't see that she had "shocked the literary and artistic world" with these statements. Greer often says things that make it into the media - the fact that the media picks up so readily on anything controversial she says is in my opinion more interesting than the things she is saying.

Feel free to discuss and re-introduce this text if there is enough evidence of these latest statements being a significant event in/marker of Greer's life. Jenafalt (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

For posts about writers, they deserve a bibliography section of main works and where to find them. When I need a reference source such as wikipedia, this is the main thing I am looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.202.173 (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome

I removed the following, which has been sitting unnoticed by me for a while in the "Other Media" section. As it stands it is hopelessly POV. Some of GG's own words on transexual surgery have been quoted in the section "on the whole woman", if the issue needs more space (which I doubt)then it needs a non-partisan summary. This is not the place for a debate with GG.

I removed: "Germaine Greer has received much media attention for her writings against intersexed people. In 'The Whole Woman', Greer denies that women with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome are women at all. AIS women are included in her chapter called 'Pantomime Dames'. The media attention that this received caused her to receive letters from sexologist Dr. Milton Diamond of Hawaii as well as members and families of the international AIS community. Greer believes that even patients with complete AIS should be considered 'defective males'. Greer believes that transsexual men who desire to be women are doing so by their own free will. In 'The Whole Woman' she blames illnesses such as polycystic ovarian disease for causes of women who become transmen. She makes the claim that women with Complete AIS must take large doses of estrogens to control facial hair. Both the polycystic ovarian disease claim and the AIS/facial hair claim have no basis in medical science." Jeremy (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Emeritus professorships

Just wondering why the following was deleted..."Greer is now retired but retains her position as Professor Emeritus in the Department of English Literature and Comparative Studies at the University of Warwick, Coventry." Has the situation changed? Jeremy (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Oh....now I see, duplication. Jeremy (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No bibliography

A bibliography is conspicuously absent in the article (though there is a prose discussion of certain books). If someone has one to hand it would be great to add. I will try to get to it this week. Spanglej (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In popular Culture

I suggest we cut the In popular Culture section and keep the two depictions of Greer under a 'depictions' heading. WP:TRIV says "Trivia sections should be avoided." Thanks Spanglej (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Should there be any references to Greers appearances in popular culture? I'm thinking of Clive James thinly disguised humour in his autobiography.The problem is that it is very un-Wikipedia in tone, almost satire.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What Clive James ref are you thinking of? It may well fit in somewhere if it's relevant, well sourced and adds to the article, I'd say. Span (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Emeritus/Emerita

I noticed that the article refers to GG as Professor Emeritus at Warwick. However a female holder of an emeritus professorship is often referred to as a Professor Emerita. Does anyone know what the exact title of GG's position is at Warwick and/or if she has any preferences about how she is referred to (emeritus/emerita)? R is the gas constant (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No strong preference from me. Given that most female actors seem to prefer to be referred as 'actors' not 'actresses' and female poets as 'poets', not 'poetesses' (etc) I would probably keep it as is. It seems pedantic to bother overly much unless to make a political point. No doubt if you put 'Emerita' we would have to revert well meant spelling changes every few weeks. I'm sure it cannot be too hard to find out GG's exact title. Best wishes Span (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Television appearances

If the section under "Other media" can describe her appearances on "Celebrity Big Brother", surely it should mention her appearances on "Grumpy Old Women" or her appearances on This Week (she appeared on the latter programme on July 14 2011). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)