Talk:Kate Millett

message: # I cannot find the book "Believe me, you don't want a picture of that!, 1991" - Is this a real book?
# There are much better pictures of her than the one used in the article. Does anyone know of a better one in the public domain? 
--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: June 8, 2019  12:30 pm
Hello - It seems to me that the Mental Illness section of the KM bio ought to be preceded by a WP editor's recommendation of the following type:
"This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"
Reason:
I suggest this insofar as the Mental Illness entry moves between description and judgmentalism - the latter appearing to reflect Kate Millet's subjective views and then echoed or relayed without objectifying distancing by the the section's author. 
Such opinions can be framed as attributed to KM or as attributed to authorities or friends and thus included in a way that the entry does not "take sides" in the controversy. Otherwise it seems inappropriate in an enclyclopedia to adopt the frame of K Millet herself without neutrality.  Were the author to take a more distanced approach, K Millet's presented symptoms of mania & depression, history of hospitalizations, inappropriate behavior and both involuntary & voluntary resort to psychotropic medications for bipolar disorder and her views on psychiatry could be properly attributed & acknowledged and her arguments put into perspective in a neutral fashion, rather than appear to adopt her view point as definitive.
Examples which appear unobjective include:
"Millett became depressed, particularly so about having been confined without due process." (inferential)
"Her behavior was that of psychiatric drug withdrawal, including "mile-a-minute" speech, which turned her peaceful art colony to "a quarrelsome dystopia." - This is inferential as pressured speech and difficult behavior (such as quarrelsomeness) are alternatively explicable as a relapse, which her friends recognized as her needing resumption of lithium and rehospitalization.
"She was involuntarily committed in Ireland after airport security "determined from someone in New York" that she had a "mental illness" and had stopped taking lithium.[18]  Perhaps she was disruptive at the airport and authorities were advised she had pre-existing mental illness previously treated.  Otherwise this sentence reads as if this was an unjustified use of authority assisted by a (valid) informal report of her hisory of mental illness. Millet's subsequent decompensation in NYC requiring further hospitalization points to the wisdom of her friends and authorities that she needed if not required evaluation and possible treatment whilst in Dublin's airport.
"Millett's involvement with psychiatry caused her to attempt suicide several times due to both damaging physical and emotional effects but also because of the slanderous nature of psychiatric labeling that affected her reputation and threatened her very existence in the world."  Again, while indeed stigmatization and actual or subjectively interpreted mistreatment by psychiatric professionals or institutions indeed may and do compound problems due to one's illness itself, its seems inappropriate in an encyclopedia entry to adopt the view of the patient whole without caveat, distance or balance.  Her suicide attempts are also consistent with bi polar depressive episodes, personality disorder, and to use adjectives as "slanderous" or that psychiatric interventions which may also have saved her life are characterized as "threatening her existence". This undermines trust in the entry author's contribution.
Mcha6677 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Mental Illness section:

message: A fairly minor point but do we really need to link genteel in the quote "a life of genteel poverty"? WP:MOSQUOTE says do not link inside quotes and I would have thought genteel was a fairly common English word, although perhaps that is my British background skewing impressions. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how much the word is used among the younger generation, but if you'd like to remove it, that's cool with me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and you might want to consider using  with  in future; that seems to have superseded the #tag:ref construct for footnotes. I see that you've picked up on what appear to be fairly recent changes to the cite parameters: the addition of the subscription= field is particularly useful for quality articles, where previously I found myself having to use . Anything that reduces the amount of misplaced brackets I have to fix is progress! - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great points, . Thanks, I'll check out the notes options. I am sooo with you about the misplaced brackets issue!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: :Biographer Roberta M. Hooks wrote, "Quite apart from any feminist polemics, The Basement can stand alone as an intensely felt and movingly written study of the problems of cruelty and submission."
I think this linking raises several points. First, when she wrote that, did she link "polemic" to the Wikipedia article so titled? I doubt this. Secondly, if she didn't link it, are we distorting what she wrote by linking it? I don't always agree with MoS, but (happily cherry-picking away) I do agree when it says: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article."
And thirdly, the article "Polemic" doesn't strike me as helpful here. "Polemic" isn't a particularly elusive word; readers of an article on [insert gruesome example of bubble-gum "popular culture" here] might need it explained, but those of an article on Millett probably don't, and would probably be better served by a dictionary if they did. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my goodness! If there's a guideline not to link within quotes, that's good enough for me. I removed the link.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: linking from within quotations

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kate Millett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mije.org/features/womens-history-2012/kate-millett
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141014170056/http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/findingaids/millett.pdf to http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/findingaids/millett.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kate Millett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140818105429/http://www.st-hildas.ox.ac.uk/kate-millett to http://www.st-hildas.ox.ac.uk/kate-millett
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141013062455/http://www.cla.umn.edu/news/reach/archive/winter2012.php?entry=380069 to http://cla.umn.edu/news/reach/archive/winter2012.php?entry=380069
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics  would interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting some help

message: There has been a string of edits made, reverted/removed, and added again to the article, so I thought I'd summarize what appears to be happening:
* Linking Paris - does not need to be linked per WP:OVERLINKING
* Adding a citation for Millet's partner in the infobox - not needed since it's cited in the body of the article
* Different formats for "spouses" in the infobox - I added the partner parameter for Sophie Keir
Make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Sophie should have been listed as a spouse... and my edit was corrected. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

text: There is nothing substandard about using . Millett is best known for her writings and it's entirely appropriate to use that template. As for linking to that section, it's wise to do so in order to contextualise the second marriage since the year of that marriage is unknown. Using just her wife's name below without anything to provide context is unhelpful to the reader and could even imply to some that she was married twice simultaneously. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This book appears to be self-published so we should not be listing it. It's not on Amazon, Google Books, or in Worldcat. I found one sales site that purported to have an ISBN for it, but searching for that ISBN turns up a different book. Skyerise (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The book does have an ISBN, it's 9789163748196 which I found here. It appears to be an account by some visitors of the Women's Art Colony Farm which Millett founded so I would say it's fine to be placed in further reading per Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Self-published_doesn't_mean_a_source_is_automatically_invalid. Yes it's self-published but it's not being used for any claims. Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fake ISBN. If it were a real one it could be used to look up the book on Amazon, Google, and Worldcat, but that ISBN doesn't find the book on any of this sites. We are not supposed to send people to self-published content because it has not been vetted by a publisher. And we are also not supposed to promote self-published books by listing them. That entry probably got placed by the PR team for the book. I don't think we should list it. Skyerise (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

text: OK, it does find it on Worldcat, though not the others. I'll re-add it with proper author attribution. Skyerise (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like a good solution to add it like that, nice one! Mujinga (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Piece of Land: Kate Millett Farm  

message: I am working on turning Millett's list of works into tables. My question is: Should we keep (and add) book chapters that are literal extracts of Millett's books? I presume this is the case of the 2005 anthology Feminist Theory: A Philosophical Anthology as "Theory of Sexual Politics" is a chapter from Sexual Politics. 7szz (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on "Other publications" section