Talk:Germaine Greer/Archive 1

message: I saw Germaine Greer on a BBC4 television programme (see Illuminations on TV) and the caption on screen while she was talking said something to the effect of, "Prof Germaine Greer, Cambridge University", and further, the setting for her contributions looked rather like an Oxford or Cambridge college chapel (certainly nothing like Warwick). Is she back at Cambridge now?--AlexanderLondon 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cambridge

message: there are four paragraphs which have very little to do with her biog. It surely should start with her Melbourne childhood. I believe that those fist four paras should be removed. Its not that they hve no value itw just they are in the wrong position.Lentisco 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which four paragraphs do you mean exactly, Lentisco? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see you removed them already. I've restored them. It's too much to delete without discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Then by all means look for a more suitable place, but don't keep deleting it. In any event, there's no rule that says bios must start with early life. There's nothing wrong with putting the person's notability in some kind of context first. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2006 
(UTC)
Well I think youre wrong--its ugly, confuses the reader as it is illogical and unencyclopedic. The vast majority of other entries begin with their biographical details. However as you seem to be in charge of this little micro-world youre obviously not going to concede anything or negotiate. But you get to be in control and thats the important thing isnt it? No matter that wikipedia is let down. This will never be a featured article as it stands. Lentisco 01:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: At the start of the biography section...

message: I came to this article from the Monty Python article, which listed Greer as a notable actor in some of the sketches. But this article says nothing either way. Did she participate? When? How? What did she think of it? --maru  (talk) contribs 04:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monty Python 

message: For some reason this quotation is attributed to Christine Wallace writing in the sidney Morning herald. However if you follow the reference link it is from an article by Catherine Keeler. i have read the main body of the article it appears to me that Wallace didn't say it, instead the intro to the article clearly states: "Germaine Greer's mind provokes us like no other, but for all the wrong reasons, writes Catherine Keenan." Please do not reverse my changes in the name of vandalism which had previously been the case, if Wallace did indeed say it then verifiable refernces need to be added, and accusations of vandalsim not used so frequently. 213.121.151.142 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "her mind provokes like no other[...]" 

message: Until some can come up with a convincing argument I am renaming heading to 'biography' There are no 'details' as such in this article. This is a general interest page on GG. Show me where the 'details' are?. Other wise it reads as some high school essay. Can we have some class and accuracy?. The opinion quoted in the first part of her 'biography' does NOT belong there. This is an encyclopedia --we want facts. Any general reader does not want some opinion in this intial part of GG's page. Im moving them to a new section 'social impact' where they belong. Please do not revert. This page is messy and amateurish-Im trying to put some order into it.Melbob 04:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made 28 edits to articles. Perhaps you could try to be a little less overbearing? The whole page is her biography so it looks odd to call one section "biography." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What is a bit rich coming from me? And how is her literary output not part of her biography? I have no idea what you mean by "show me the details." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: twee headings

message: I just have a general question about Greer. I don't know much about her and this is the first time i've learned much, if anything, of her. That's good - because this being an encyclopedia we want to allow people who are ignorant of a subject the ability to read on the subject and feel like they understand the subject enough to ask these fundamental questions i'm about to ask. The question pertains to the following paragraph:
"In 2003, The Beautiful Boy was published, an art history book about the beauty of teenage boys, richly illustrated with 200 photographs of what The Guardian called "succulent teenage male beauty", alleging that Greer had reinvented herself as a "middle-aged pederast." [6] Greer described the book as an attempt to address women's apparent indifference to the teenage boy as a sexual object and to "advance women's reclamation of their capacity for, and right to, visual pleasure" (Greer 2003). The boy pictured on the cover was Björn Andresen."
Now i'm sure i'm wrong and it no doubt raised several eyebrows, but based on this article alone, I have to ask if there was any criticism or defamation of her character due to this event? I mean - I would think if a grown man, for example, made a photography book of girls around 14 years old and said something like "advance men's reclamation of their capacity for, and right to , visual pleasure," it would probably spark heavy criticism and could possibly ruin his carrer.
So i'm just wondering, once again from the article alone, was there any reaction to this and is it worth mentioning? --Jelligraze 04:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I was wondering this too. This page and the article on the book, don't list much criticism at all, and I'm pretty sure there was quite a lot. As you say, if a man released it, there'd be shouts of "pedophile" before the book hit the shelves. Iorek85 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good example of inequality and PC bullshit.  I believe her motives were to make some attempt at encouraging young males to be targeted and sexually victimised in the way that many young women are portrayed.  Ms Greer has very little understanding or compassion for the male population in my opinion.  She sees us as the enemy.  I hope whichever male in her life made her this bitter and twisted person incapable of holding down a relationship with a man, caused her at least as much pain as she has caused Terri, Bindi and Bob Irwin. NSWelshman 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: NSWelshman was banned a couple of months back for persistent trolling. He/she is baiting you, there is not much to be gained from taking the lure. Phaedrus86 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: "She received her Ph.D. in 1968 ... The same year, in London, she married ... but the marriage lasted only three weeks, and ended in divorce in 1973."
This will baffle some people.  Perhaps what is meant is that they separated after three weeks and divorced in 1973.  Otherwise the marrage ended in divorce in 1968 or 1969.
Well, it makes sense to me. Perhaps the sentence could be changed to "...and ultimately ended in divorce in 1973" for clarity, but I won't change it- changes are best left to previous editors IMO 81.109.154.248 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: date conflict?

message: The introduction has four quotations concerning Germaine Greer, all of which actually come from females. Wouldn't it be better to include a comment from a male, especially when her works are concerning the two sexes? Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 12:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is patently abusive and provocative to claim that people who don't happen to hold your opinions suffer from the issues you claim. Please don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Phaedrus86 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: NSWelshman, you're being disingenuous. People were embarrassed by Steve Irwin (and disliked him) for a variety of different reasons, and stereotyping them as all suffering from "insecurity issues and huge inferiority complexes," is very silly and emotive. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of a few groups of people who would dislike him.  Poachers, developers and those suffering from cultural cringe.  Which one are you?  The rest of us either like him or are indifferent.  It takes a special kind of inferiority complex to actively hate the guy. NSWelshman 11:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we're wandering off-topic here. Discussion about Steve Irwin can go to Talk:Steve Irwin. Right now we just need some comments in the introduction from males so the article would be more neutral. Aran|heru|nar 06:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard enough getting neutrality. Looking for gender neutrality is a bit of an ask, I think. Does it really matter whether comments come from males or females? Phaedrus86 14:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion relates to something this ... said on record in public soon after the death of this man.  That's why the discussion is in this ... page. NSWelshman 11:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still don't get it - this page is for discussion about the article, not for discussion about her. There are lots of seedy bars in the world to go vent about her. Not here. Please desist or you will end up being blocked again. Phaedrus86 14:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Snottygobble 04:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations in the introduction 

message: I removed and deleted the image that was on the page, as I've just seen it on another website for sale. I don't think we can claim fair use if it has a commercial value. I've written to the agent to ask if they can make a free-license one available instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image1

message: A citation has been sought for the lead paragraph assertion widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century.
#Germaine Greer –– Known as the diva of feminism - 
#Here is the colorful cast of characters on whose shoulders we stand--the feminist icons Betty Friedan, Kate Millett, Germaine Greer, and Gloria Steinem - publisher comments http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0385318316-0] about the book: 
#Germaine Greer's seminal work, The Obstacle Race: Fortunes of Women Painters and Their Work, (1979), ... - 
#French is a respected American writer, part of a feminist pantheon that includes Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer. - 
#Greer is included in the list at Feminist movement#Notable historical feminists - it isn't a long list and you could ask for some citations there but I think it might come under the category of common knowledge a bit.
#We are thrilled to be welcoming feminist icon Germaine Greer, the controversial MP George Galloway, Orange Prize winner Lionel Shriver, best selling novelists Jonathan Coe and Louis de Bernieres, radical journalist John Pilger and psychotherapist Susie Orbach. + Germaine Greer is an Australian academic, writer, and broadcaster, who is widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century. - blurb for Hull Literature festival July 2006 
A range of citations that support the assertion.  I don't believe even her critics regard her as a nonentity when it comes to feminism.--Golden Wattle  talk 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance? 

message: I changed the sentence "is a British man hater, writer, and broadcaster, who is widely regarded as one of the most significant Feminism|Man Hater voices of the 20th century" into "feminist" and "Feminism". -- Birgitsnet  16:05, 15 September 2006 (GMT)
*I would regard man-hater as point-of-view and in fact vandalism. - no need to discuss reversion of vandalism :-) --Golden Wattle  talk 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not work by convincing arguments on a talk page. It is based on verifiability using reliable sources, not truth. Andjam 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being a feminist does not equal being a "man hater" 

message: I'd like to reference a commentary from the Melbourne City Weekly Magazine, and below is the way I was thinking of doing it. Is this suitable; it would follow on from the existing para:
In September 2006, Greer's column in The Guardian newspaper about the death of Australian Steve Irwin attracted criticism for what was reported as a "distasteful tirade". In an interview with the Nine Network's A Current Affair about her comments, Greer said she "really found the whole Steve Irwin phenomenon embarrassing and [that she was] not the only person who did, or indeed the only Australian who did" and that she hoped that "exploitative nature documentaries" would now end.. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie labelled her comments "stupid" and "insensitive", one of a number of Australian political leaders to make similar comments. While several Australian newspapers reproduced part of her column they also published letters from readers incensed by her comments the following day. Other Australian commentators, such as P. P. McGuinness, the current editor of Quadrant, supported her comments..
Another Australian commentator, Charlie Pickering, a contributor to Melbourne's City Weekly magazine, wrote in his September 14, 2006 "Soap box" column, "...What is very clear is that Steve Irwin did something that Greer has been unable to do for quite some time: put something positive into the world. Deep down he was something that she is not: proud to be Australian. Despite my love of all things intellectual above all else, of the two it is Steve, not Germaine, who makes me proud to be Australian. It is telling and perhaps unfortunate that should Germaine Greer be unlucky enough to meet a similarly ironic poetic demise (perhaps crushed under the weight of her own self-importance), there won't be a Germaine Greer to score cheap publicity points from it".
And then also add a reference:
*Pickering, Charlie. "Nasty Creatures Invading Our Habitat; When a recently deceased crocodile hunter meets a reptile of the press, it's hardly a fair contest.", City Weekly, September 14, 2006
Cheers, 210.50.228.5 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it belongs on the Steve Irwin page, if anywhere, but not here. The statement is heavily biased and does not explain anything about Greer. Demonisation doesn't help anyone understand anything, and neither does hagiography. Not everyone thinks Irwin is such a saint. I think plenty of people sick of hearing about him find the Greer page a welcome bit of light relief. OK, I'm being flippant here, but seriously, many have criticized Greer for her comments all her life. I think there is already a fair sample of that criticism in the article. More doesn't help. Phaedrus86 04:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To add my two cents, Melbourne City Weekly Magazine is not sufficiently notable I am afraid.  I think only comments from leading newspapers and /or commentators should be included and, as per Phaedrus86, we already have enough.  I don't think the Steve Irwin page would benefit either - responses to Greer's comments have been made and referenced and this one is not anything new or different.  --Golden Wattle  talk 06:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Weekly 

message: She appeared in a recently released film about the rabbit vibrator, and chimed in on the critical panning it received. She claims she was paid £1 for her appearance (residuals to follow once the film broke box-office records), and wishes she hadn't bothered. What an unusual person - so intelligent on serious subjects, so willing to jump in to cartoonish media stunts. Judging by the article, she's been doing this since the early days.--80.4.169.22 11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbit 

message: The following was moved from the Finished first draft section, where it was clearly out of place. Phaedrus86 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the Telegraph article cited in Germaine Greer at the end of the paragraph on the hostage incident. This article states about the student that Charges of causing actual bodily harm and unlawful imprisonment were withdrawn. This means that, before the charges were withdrawn, she was actually charged. Therefore the statement is true if the newspaper report is true. The newspaper concerned, the Telegraph, is a reputable news source. Your comment that "This is a contemporaneous site" is absurd when used in relation to an incident that occurred over 6 years ago. Taking all this into account, the "hostage statement" is NOT libellous. An unqualified individual claiming that something is libellous does not come anywhere near making it libellous. Kindly post opinions from qualified professionals, together with verifiable statement of their qualifications which would lead us to believe their opinions are credible. Until then, kindly desist from vandalising Wikipedia articles. Phaedrus86 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tidied it a little. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the second sanitisation of the truth in response to a completely irrational accusation of libel. I don't like giving in to nutters, but it looks like I will have to bow out of the argument. Phaedrus86 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libel allegation

message: The article says that she uses her own experience of rape in her writing but does not say anything more. Was she raped? If so when, how, by who and how does she use it in her writing? The bellman 13:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A search on Google for keywords "Greer rape" shows several references. Phaedrus86 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape 

message: I'm not sure this image is appropriate because of the expression on her face. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had the image you linked to, claiming fair use, but then I found it on another website for sale. We're only allowed to claim fair use if our use of an image doesn't affect its monetary value, so I had to delete it. It's good to have a freely licensed one, as the current one is; I just worry that she was caught at an awkward moment. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked her agents, Gillon Aitken Associates at http://www.gillonaitkenassociates.co.uk/ for a photo that we could use. I explained Wikipedia's draconian copyright rules and they gave explicit permission for the image "Greer - to use always.JPG" to be used. Since the agent's role in life is to promote their client, if they provide an image, I really don't think that we should quibble over it. If the image is found on other web sites, that does NOT mean that we can't use it here simply because that other web site asserts copyright, or is copyrighted by virtue of being published. We CAN use it, because her agents said we can. What's more, the image provided accords her respect, which the previous image did not. Phaedrus86 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, but have you confirmed the permission with the Foundation?--cj | talk 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, did so just now. I have to say it is all very Kafkaesque, jumping through hoops to very verify that we can use an image which was explicitly produced for this sort of purpose. It is surprising that Wikipedia gets any decent illustrations at all with this degree of paranoia. Phaedrus86 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but it is ultimately worthwhile. Thanks for making the effort to attain a photo – the previous was very unsuitable.--cj | talk 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Advised by SlimVirgin that agents don't hold copyright, so Wikipedia rules don't allow it. Waste of time that was. Phaedrus86 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the previous photo has been reinstated, thus contributing to Wikipedia mediocrity. Not much point trying to maintain this crap. Phaedrus86 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Why was this fact removed.  She very openly makes the admission.  It is particularly relevant for a person who speaks about feminism, women's issues and marriage.  It is no one else's opinion - it is her statement. It is properly referenced. Comment1 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Confessed Adulteress 

message: The recent deletion from a discussion page amounts to censorship.  GG invites fame by deliberatively being controversial, radical, annoying etc. The quotes on the page include "clever fool" - "hard boled prat" - the quote be Professor Lisa Jardine - her husband - being arrested for foul language - "She has been in the business of shaking up a complacent establishment" - etc etc.   This is well documented on her page.  You may disagree with this.  But people are discussing her behaviour and even associating it with her fame.  If you disagree - say so - do not censor a discussion page because of your own views.  I invite others to comment.  I will reinstate - now on this new page - tomorrow.  I invite comments - unlike another who has tried to supress it. Comment1 02:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you reinstate material that violates BLP, you may be blocked from editing. Please review WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles, and the relevant section of WP:BLOCK. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have pointed out that the comments for this person (which were not made by me) are legitimate.  The article is full of the same.  Why are you afradid of free speech.  I would welcome an arbitration on this issue. Comment1 02:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just read what has now been censored twice by SlimVirgin.  Greer annoys many people.  This is well referenced - the example above from the page are a few examples worthy of keeping - apparently. Greer intellectually cgallenges all of us - and this is very annoying to many of us.  We are capable of understanding the brilliance with the bizarre. While we must be more careful about the content of the article; a discussion page is a vaild place for discussion.    That is just like saying Greer remains controversial and this keeps her in the press.  Should we report SlimVirgin for censorship?  Is there a protocol on this?  60.226.76.41 14:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "Good point but that wasn't what the comment was, was it?"  Yes it was.  You should have read it before deleting it.  There are four entries.  The fourth said "Being annoying is how she has achieved her fame. She invites these comments and says she does not care." Now are you going to reinstate it - now that you say it is a good point. Comment1 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: Substituted at 20:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment