Talk:Amanda Marcotte/Archive 1

Archive 1

Liberal

Is it appropriate to describe Marcotte as 'liberal'? She is an American Progressive and she also describes herself that way. Does reality trump self-proscribed descriptions?

NPOV

I made a few POV to NPOV changes. Here's why:

• Somebody changed Catholic "dogma" to "theology". I changed it back to dogma. Marcotte's criticism wasn't a challenge to Catholic theology - she appears to have been angered by some aspects of Catholic law or rules - aka dogma.
• I changed reproduction back to reproductive rights. I don't think Marcotte was challenging the biological laws of nature behind reproduction. She was clearly concerned with reproductive rights - i.e. access to birth control, abortion, etc.
• Her views are "allegedly" anti-Catholic, not "radically" anti-Catholic. Teh use of "Radically" under any circumstance here is POV and inappropriate. I would imagine that if one of us were to speak with Marcotte, she wouldn't consider her views to be anti-Catholic at all - in fact she may even be Catholic herself. The KKK holds "Radically" anti-Catholic views. Marcotte did not express any such views.

Let's please try to keep this article clean. Thanks! --AStanhope 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article means to refer specifically to birth control or reproductive rights, then "dogma" is definitely the wrong word. The Catholic Church has not dogmatically defined any teachings on birth control. Of course there are teachings about birth control which Catholics are supposed to adhere to, but they simply aren't dogmatic. (The virgin birth is an example of a belief that is dogmatically defined.)

I say this only for your edification. My own opinion is that this article should be deleted. An encyclopedia should not have these stub articles springing up for every minor controversy that hits the news. 18.252.5.164 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding an article before this idiot storm, on the grounds that she runs a popular blog and now writes for a major politician's site. As for the terminology dispute, this no longer matters unless somebody objects to "teachings". I don't know if I like "angry". That may work in some cases, but the main quote I saw people attacking her for looked like a 'rude' joke. The article doesn't need to speculate on her state of mind. Dan 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I considered "profanely-worded", but I don't think that sounds like real English. Feel free to suggest another neutral expression. Dan 01:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Some changes have been made - I think it looks good. What do you think? --AStanhope 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of Marcotte's style or politics, but I think this article gets it right. We did a decent job 00:09, 9 Feb 07 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.85.245.43 (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I removed the phrases 'strongly worded' and 'controversially worded' from the article. They violated NPOV: It isn't up to the writer to determine if they were 'strongly worded' and 'controversially worded', but the reader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.176.131 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

That's a pretty stupid edit, and a POV edit at that. No one, including Amanda, is saying her posts were not strongly or controversially worded. The question is whether they were blasphemous, bigoted, or somehow humorous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm putting "strongly-worded" back in, and will keep doing so. While I personally believe "obnoxious," "bigotted," and "vicious" are more appropriate adjectives, "strongly-worded" is MORE than sufficiently neutral. No sane person would consider the terms she used as anything less than "strongly-worded." If you can come up with another adjective, I invite you to do so. There WILL be a characterization of the comments in this article.--Kromagon 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Links

I was confused by the last external link on this article. While it's understandable that the article should link to blogs directly involved -- pandagon and another Marcotte blog -- the last link was to someone's blog article attacking Ms. Marcotte. It seemed rather irrelevant. Especially given its recent insertion without edit comment by an unregistered editor, I concluded it was an attempt to promote the linked blog, and reverted the edit. Anyone disagree? LaPrecieuse 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- especially as you deleted all references to the Duke lacrosse case, which has also played a large part in this affair. Goldfritha 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How so? I saw people online mentioning this, but did people in the media? Did Donohue? Dan 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the news mentioned it. Here [1], and here [link to Post Chronicle removed], among others. However, the references in the article are more complete about what she said and how she tried to delete it. Goldfritha 04:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah blah -- I was confused and had a question SO I REVERTED IT AND THEN I ASKED MY QUESTION. blah blah blah LaPreciueuseses please stop raping the wikipedia. you are not doing anyone any good by shooting first and asking questions later. 71.39.78.68 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The post about the politico commentary was irrelevant to the topic, and was deleted.--Kromagon 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly relevant. Who objected to the material is hardly unimportant. Goldfritha 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That Donahue and other conservatives objected is already stated in the article. The Politico article you refered to ads nothing. Feel free to add it to links, but there is no reason to reference it specifically in the body of the article.--Kromagon 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is an argument for violation of WP:NPOV: to remove the information that non-conservatives objected. Goldfritha 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to Iowa Hawk's parody of Amanda Maracotte was appropriate and should have been left. http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/02/my_fair_blogger.html "22:48, 15 February 2009 Irn (Talk | contribs) m (13,639 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Myfairblogger; WP:EL, WP:BLP. using TW) (undo)" No I am not Iowa Hawk, but I thought the satire parody was witty enough to be a social commentary worth posting. It is relevant to this topic. Obviously it is not neutral but it is not intended to be neutral--it is satire of Amanda Marcotte. Nor am I suggesting it be in the body of the article, which would obviously be NPOV. It is an external link, directly related to Amanda Maracotte. It should be included. Is Wikipedia at the point that no parody can be referenced in a bio article as an external link? How pathetic. Myfairblogger (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated in the edit summmary, I reverted your edit because it violates both the external links guideline and the biographies of living people policy. Some choice quotations:

From the BLP policy: External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links.

From the EL guideline (under what should be linked): Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

From the EL guideline (under what not to link): 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. 11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

Whether it is "witty enough to be a social commentary worth posting" is irrelevant here. Inclusion of the link violates wikipedia's BLP policy and EL guidelines. -- Irn (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to edit references, but here is the non-broken link to Amanda's review of Children of Men: http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/02/11/review-of-children-of-men —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.121.81 (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Blogs

Blogs that are not written by the subject or a well known journalist or professional researcher are NEVER acceptable sources, ESPECIALLY not for biographies of living people. Do not insert them as such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs *are* allowable sources here.

Hipocrite removed a number of statements. WP:A states that primary sources are allowable; Marcotte's blog and the Edwards campaign blog are primary sources for this affair. grendel|khan 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are fine. You reinserted links to "liestoppers.blogspot.com", "durhamwonderland.blogspot.com" and "electioncentral.tpmcafe.com" as a source for a press release. You reinserted uncited personal information about a not-public person. Consider. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You gutted the article; I reverted to the original because it was closer to what I thought should be in there. I do agree that the stuff about the Duke lacrosse case doesn't belong in there. grendel|khan 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Marcotte's comments about the Duke lacrosse case were a major source of ire -- particularly among those critics who were not conservative or Christian. From the article, you could not tell that she had made them, or had such critics. It definitely slants the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldfritha (talk • contribs). 01:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

However, her opinions on the lacrosse case have nothing to do with her involvement in the Edwards campaign. The effort to get her booted from the campaign centered around her criticism of Catholic policy on birth control. If you want to argue that the legions of trolls who invaded Pandagon after her statemens on the lacrosse case are notable, you're going to have to back it up. grendel|khan 03:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. Edwards's campaign was criticized for hiring a woman who held such an opinion about the case even before the Catholic League got into the act. The critics, even if you call them a legion of trolls, were what originally brought the case to the general attention. Goldfritha 02:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Was criticized" is pretty vague. Who criticized the campaign on those grounds? What makes the criticism notable? Where in the news media were Marcotte's comments on the lacrosse case publicized? grendel|khan 05:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an instance of criticism, but Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post mentioned Marcotte's comments in February of 2007, suggesting that they could be a liability. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401280_pf.html. I believe that this gives some reason to mention it in the article. JustinBlank (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism.

The Anti-Catholicism category doesn't belong on this article. Marcotte's criticisms were directed solely at the policies and dogmas of the Church, not against Catholics in general, and not against the Church, no matter how offensively they were phrased. It's the difference between "the State of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians are disgusting" and "Hollywood is run by Jews that hate Jesus and love anal sex", if that makes it any clearer--the latter is anti-Semitism; the former is not. grendel|khan 02:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The premier group representing Catholics in the area of civil rights, defamation and bigotry have unequivocally accused her of anti-Catholic bigotry. Whether or not it is in fact bigotry on her part does not have to be determined here. I can see no reason why her own words, which are the very source of her notability should not be included (after all she had no article before the controvery and would not have merited one). And if they are nothing more than criticism of Catholic doctrine, why should their presence in the article be objectionable? Likewise the anti-Catholicism category. It's not an "anti-Catholics" category, definitively labeling her as such, although there is a pretty good argument for that. It is just a category which labels the subject. It's a tough argument to make that this article does not touch on the subject of anti-Catholicism. Mamalujo 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't quite make out what you mean by "Likewise the anti-Catholicism category. It's not an "anti-Catholics" category,"; please look at the contents of that category. Also, I seriously doubt that if you go to the article on Hollywood and mention that it's run by Jews who hate Jesus and love anal sex, because William Donohue said so, it'll fly. Or even just adding Category:Anti-Catholicism over there, since William Donohue says that Hollywood is run by those Jesus-hating, anal sex-loving Jews. "William Donohue said so" isn't a good argument in that case, and it's not a good argument in this case. As I said before, Marcotte criticized the policies and dogmas of the Catholic church. Whether she did so using filthy, filthy words or not is unrelated to whether or not she was engaging in anti-Catholic bigotry. grendel|khan 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you are the arbiter of what is anti-Catholic. Marcotte did a lot more than simply criticize the doctrine of the Catholic Church. If that was all she had done, she would not have been forced to resign. As one example, she said, "The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics" and "I suspect Pope Ratz will give into the urge eventually to come out and say there’s no limbo and unbaptized babies go straight to hell. He can’t help it; he’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw". And this gem: "Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology." Your statements saying this is only criticising doctrine are like saying Mel Gibson's drunken rant was only a comment on Jewish influence in geopolitics. It's untenable. Mamalujo 18:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the arbiter of what's anti-Catholic in the same sense that I'm the arbiter of the sky being blue and grass being green. It's indisputable that Marcotte said mean things about the Catholic Church's policies. You've failed to point out how Marcotte "did a lot more" than criticize the doctrine and leadership of the Catholic Church. Mel Gibson claimed that there was a vast Jewish conspiracy out there, which is a claim against the Jewish People. Amanda Marcotte claimed that the Catholic Church pursues policies which range from ridiculous to evil, and that their leadership doesn't have the best interest of their constituents at heart. While the tone of Marcotte's comments was pretty much designed to tick off Catholics (or rub her readership the right way, maybe), the content didn't betray bigotry against professing Catholics. grendel|khan 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

One more point. It's not just that "William Donohue said so." Marcotte was formally criticised for bigotry by the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights. Just as the actions of the ADL are not just are not just the opinions of Abe Foxman, this criticism is more than just the opinion of some guy. The organization's board includes Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University who's served as served on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the President's Council on Bioethics, Mary Ann Glendon, the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard and President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, and philosopher and diplomat Michael Novak who was the U.S. chief ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (just to name a few). Granted, the organization's criticism doesn't mean without fail that any particular comments are unequivocally anti-Catholic bigotry, but what better gauge do we have. Or must Catholics just sit back, shut their pie holes and take the abuse? The fact that we are even having this discussion just supports Philip Jenkins premise in The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice that venemous attacks are tolerated which would not be tolerated toward other groups. Mamalujo 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic League has apparently now decided that a 200-pound Chocolate Jesus (entitled "My Sweet Lord") is "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever". Despite having some impressively-credentialed folks on staff, they are not an infallible source--you point this out yourself. I fail to see how driving Marcotte out of her position with the Edwards campaign means that Catholics "[sat] back, shut their pie holes and [took] the abuse"--but remember, just because you're offended doesn't mean that the speaker did something wrong. I can make hilarious fun of Christian doctrine which would horrify plenty of true believers, but that doesn't mean I have something against Christians, and it doesn't make me a bigot. If Marcotte had said that Catholics were engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to subjugate the world under the Pope--something which actual anti-Catholics generally say--then I'd be right there with you tagging her as anti-Catholic. Repeating a non-bigoted point with more offensive language doesn't turn it into a bigoted point. grendel|khan 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the category again. Please don't just revert without reading the talk page. I haven't reverted the inclusion of the quotes because it now, thanks to an anonymous contributor, looks a lot less like a Catholic League press release. grendel|khan 21:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

justify the writing of an anti-Catholic lunatic

You damned bigots. This is all just light sophistry, a sideshow for you to justify the writing of an anti-Catholic lunatic. You're obviously anti-Catholic yourself if you'd call this farce of an article "neutral," and you obviously know nothing of Roman Catholism if you suppose that attacking Church doctrine is NOT anti-Catholic! Faith in that doctrine is the very definition of a Catholic! Martin is right. You fanatics are malicious bigots who have no qualms about treating Catholics disrespectfully.

This article looks like it was written by Marcotte herself. It reads like a bloody defense of her writings instead of an objective report. The Catholic League took nothing she wrote out of context. There is no context separate from the statements themselves, nor was there any justification for the utter disrespect shown toward the Catholic faith.

If you don't fix this, I swear you'll have to lock this article from any editing altogether, for I will be here everyday under as many different IP addresses as it takes to stop Wikipedia's blatant toleration for anti-Catholicism. As it is, this place is a sham. [added by User:24.91.89.206 (talk | contribs) at 04:32, 12 April 2007, shortly before blanking the page completely] 82.41.225.44 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then stop coming here. Ever think of that? genius. 218.101.74.174 01:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. Whether or not you agree with someone's viewpoint, so long as they're acting in good faith, we're lessened by their departure. grendel|khan 15:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from name-calling, and from threats. Instead of telling the authors of the article (a variety of different people, who may not all hold the viewpoint you think they do) that they're wrong, and trying to bully them into falling into line, you'd do better to explain why they're wrong, and why the article is wrong or misleading as it stands.

Attacking church doctrine is not by definition anti-Catholic. Would you consider Jews protesting Catholic anti-Semitism in the days before Vatican II to be anti-Catholic bigots? Would you consider the abuses perpetrated at the Magdalene Asylums exempt from criticism? Witch-hunts? What's the required time period between the Catholic Church being responsible for some evil and anyone talking about it without being tarred as anti-Catholic? While we shouldn't treat anyone disrepectfully without reason (and I hope you'll point it when the article does so), the Catholic Church doesn't get a free pass on criticism just because they can afford a lobby.

Of all the things to be accused of, I suppose "blatant toleration" isn't so bad. grendel|khan 15:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Marcotte most definitely is Anti-Catholic in that she purposely baits Catholics by desecrating and defiling those very things that Catholics hold sacred, e.g. the Holy Mother, as demonstrated in the article. The whole point of this is to offend, not to criticize, and to draw attention to herself and her blog in a forum where she controls what speech may appear. Additionally, her “criticisms” are of the variety that is so common to her other subjects – she simply declares whatever she wishes to criticize as an attribute of X, and then criticizes X (the Church, or men, or the blueness of the sky) for having that attribute – I would call this verbal masturbation. There is effectively nothing that does not come within the perview of this frame – if she doesn’t like it, whatever that it is gets the “look at the misogyny” sleight-of-hand.

The bad faith lilt that Marcotte (who is a self-avowed atheist, a fact which is in evidence and readily available) is simply criticizing dogma is risible, and the fact that this is promoted as an objective entry diminishes wikipedia’s credibility tremendously.

Apparently, Marcotte’s position is that the Church is a ruse run by a small group of faithless, elite misogynist men to control women – and that its adherents either do not actually believe their articles of faith or are fools to do the bidding of the hierarchy (i.e. “tithing Catholics” except that “tithing” is traditionally a Protestant custom). What is remarkable is the similarity between Marcotte’s espoused view and that of “anti-Papists” and Know-nothings of the recent past in American History who believed similarly that a corrupt and faithless hierarchy was trying to control the United States through massive Catholic emigration; see also, Marcotte’s view and the anti-Semitic Classic The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in which Jews are portrayed quite similarly but primarily as a financial wizard class, rather than a misogynist clerical class. How this is considered good-faith criticism of the Church is beyond me, but it is wikipedia’s reputation that is at stake, and I have no control over this. What I do recall is that an article with the same subject was recently available but not nearly as favorable as this one, and it seems that efforts were made to revise the article to flatter Marcotte and rebut the fair exposure of her own words which led to her "resignation" in the nature of hari-kari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.181.122 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 27 June 2007

I don't think there is any question that the the category "Anti-Catholicism" belongs on this article. One editor, without much tenable argument, contstantly objects and removes the category. The arguments used against including this article in the category could as easily be used to exclude the Klan or the Know Nothings. It is not necessary that it be "proven" that the subject is anti-Catholic (see the disclaimer on the category's page). It is sufficient that notable individuals or groups who deal with the issue, i.e. the Catholic League, have raised the issue. Quite frankly, anti-Catholicism (or the widespread accusation of anti-Catholicism) is the only reason that Marcotte is notable. Mamalujo 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The CL has a conflict of interest regarding discrediting her in this way, so we can't count them as a reliable source in this matter. However, if there isn't any question about it, then there should be little trouble finding a verifiable, reliable source that says so. WP:BLP requires nothing less. I've removed that cat until such time as it can be properly sourced. Rklawton 23:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The CL doesn't have a "conflict of interest" any more than the ADL does with regard to anti-Semitism. Of course that is beside the fact. The accusations of anti-Catholicsm are documented by at least three reliable sources in addition to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, i.e. the NYT, MSNBC and the Washington Post. Mamalujo 19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

News outlets parroting Donohue's press releases would be important if anyone were disputing what Marcotte said. I'm willing to surmise (as you haven't provided links) that the news outlets cited reported that William Donohue had accused Amanda Marcotte of anti-Catholicism, which nobody is contesting. grendel|khan 22:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I'm that "one editor" to whom you refer. There are several differences between the Klan or the Know Nothings and Amanda Marcotte. For example, the Klan and the Know Nothings were presumably criticized by the Catholic Church itself, while Marcotte was criticized by the guy who was, shortly thereafter, publically wishing he could behead someone for sculpting a 200-pound chocolate Jesus. The Klan and the Know Nothings incited and performed violence against Catholics; Marcotte did not. The Klan and the Know Nothings engaged in lies and conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church; Marcotte criticized them on specific pieces of their policy. A controversy stirred up by William Donohue is hardly a "widespread accusation"; given his penchant for declaring whatever has his goat this week as "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever", I doubt you'll be adding "Hollywood" to the anti-Catholicism category. I've said it before and I'll say it again: criticism of Catholic policy is not inherently anti-Catholic. grendel|khan 22:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anti-catholic supposed to be a 'controversial' position? I would have thought it was the default position in this enlightened age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.85.248 (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotes from Catholic League press release

The Catholic League press release which initially accused Amanda Marcotte of being anti-Catholic used four quotes from her website which were alleged to be evidence of anti-Catholicism. The press release gave no context for the quotes. This is not POV, it is plain fact: in one instance, in fact, the press release took two sentence fragments from the same paragraph and quoted them as having been written on "the same day". That there was no context provided by the Catholic League is not "NPOV" - it can be established by looking at the press release.

If an editor thinks there was context, please outline the context given by the Catholic League here, rather than just reverting the initial paragraph of the Edwards Campaign section. Again. Yonmei 10:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one specific one. You say that the last CL press release doesn't state that it was quoting a film review, but it does, in fact, say just that. Please check the actual press release (linked in the article): [2]

Yesterday, Amanda Marcotte reviewed a movie, “Children of Men,” on the blogsite Pandagon. “The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal,” she said, “where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.”

I think that's sufficient context. Note that contrary to your assertion, the CL does specifically state that it was quoting a movie review (though I have no idea why that matters).

In any event, the article linked to both the CL statement and the film review it was commenting on, which should let people judge the quality of the criticism for themselves. I agree with Mamalujo--by adding in the words "without reference to context", you are inserting criticism of the Catholic League in a way that violates WP:NPOV. If you feel the article isn't giving enough information, then please expand it with actual quotations from the CL statements (all of which are on the record), or quotations from Ms. Marcotte, which make your point; don't just insert it in the editorial voice. IMHO. -- Narsil 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch - I didn't notice that line about the film review in the CL press release. Fair enough.

The initial CL press release, though, did quite literally pull 4 snippets off 3 Pandagon blog posts, without the slightest reference to context. (In one instance, in fact, two sentence fragments were from the same paragraph of the same blog post on the Catholic idea of Limbo: and were described by the CL in their press release as having been posted on "the same day" which is meiosis indeed....)

Describing accurately the Catholic League's strategy in presenting Amanda Marcotte as an anti-Catholic writer is not NPOV: it is a necessary part of this wiki page. A couple of editors (Mamalujo in particular) have attempted to introduce an NPOV element by asserting that Amanda Marcotte is anti-Catholic, for which there is no evidence. We must stick to describing what happened, rather than attempting to take one side or another. That the CL's press releases about Amanda Marcotte picked out without context snippets that they could present as anti-Catholic, which in context are clearly not anti-Catholic. That has been discussed in full already: it has been agreed that it is NPOV to include this page in the "Anti-Catholicism" category or to assert on it that Marcotte was anti-Catholic. We can't skip this part of what happened just because it could be interpreted as criticism of the Catholic League. Yonmei 09:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"That the CL's press releases about Amanda Marcotte picked out without context snippets that they could present as anti-Catholic, which in context are clearly not anti-Catholic." That's just it. I read Ms. Marcotte's full posts, and to me, they are anti-Catholic (and anti-Christian in general). I'm not alone in calling it that way--Andrew Sullivan, f'r'ex, read it the same way.

I'm not inclined to get into a big argument about whether Ms. Marcotte is anti-Catholic. But if you're saying "she clearly isn't anti-Catholic", well, you're going to have a lot of people disagreeing with you. And if you think her non-anti-Catholicism is so clearly established that Wikipedia ought to present it as fact, all I can say is, that's not NPOV where I sit.

Now, to me, the situation is plain. Edwards hired a couple of anti-Christian bigots. The CL, as is their way, tried to hog all the attention by running around yelling like dicks. Aforementioned bigots got fired, and crawled back into their holes. But I don't insist that the WP article read that way. But if you intend the article to be a hagiographic account of the martyrdom of St. Amanda the Misread, I'm going to politely demur. -- Narsil 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, the situation is equally plain: Edwards hired two well-known liberal feminist bloggers, and the Catholic League did the usual thing of claiming that outspoken opposition to the Catholic Church's current policies is "anti-Catholic". The ferocity of their attacks was such that both bloggers were forced to resign. (The other blogger, Melissa McEwan, also cited death and rape threats as among her reasons for resignation.)

Fortunately, we don't have to try and compromise between what I perceive as having happened and what you perceive as having happened. We just have to stick to the recorded facts, and I believe the wikipage as it now stands presents a reasonable enough record of the indisputable facts. Yonmei 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pandagon

Why isn't there a separate wikipage for Pandagon? 82.41.225.44 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No one made one. You can. [3]. Please don't wikilink pandagon again, however, until you do, because it's a circular redirect which is bad. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, responding to this a year after it was written, but – I don't think there should be a separate page for Pandagon – I don't think Pandagon is really notable in any way separate from being Amanda Marcotte's blog. In fact, if it wasn't for her involvement in the Edwards campaign and controversies around that reported in the mainstream media, I wouldn't say Marcotte was particularly notable. Please read WP:Notability and WP:VERIFY for Wikipedia's policy on blogs as sources. A lot of people who are "internet famous" are simply not notable by WP standards. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for information about Jesse Taylor. It's not *just* Marcotte's blog. As blogs go, it's been around for some time.141.202.248.68 (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave this statement somewhere regarding this domain name, it has been taken over by a different group. Cap020570 (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about Amanda Marcotte NOT about the Bill Donahue controversy

It is perfectly germane in an article about Marcotte to mention the Duke Lacrosse Incident since she made a big deal of it herself. And if her notability is that she is a blogger, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss her actions as a blogger. If one of her notable actions was in removing certain prejudicial posts from her blog and another blog captured those posts, it is entirely reasonable to cite both the removal and the capture of the older posts. To do otherwise is to leave the encyclopedia inaccurate.

FWIW, durhamwonderland is a blog from a respected academic, who would otherwise be considered a fine wikipedia source.

the GUIDELINES are GUIDELINES. They are not laws. 130.76.64.93 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for a real journalist for a cite about Marcotte's Duke imbroglio, how about Reason and former Boston Globe scribe Cathy Young: http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2007/02/pandagate-and-anti-male-bigotry.html

Here's an additional cite from the Washington Post article about her leaving the Edwards campaign which mentions the Duke lacrosse remarks after the anti-Catholic stuff: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201632.html

I think the fact that she felt obliged to scrub the offending entry regarding Duke is significant becasue it shows just what a big deal it was. Happily, making a huge public jackass out of herself is arguably the most significant single thing Marcotte has ever done.

Also, don't forget that Edwards is a Carolina boy himself. The scandal essentially took place in his back yard. I would think that that would be significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer Ratcliffe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV numero dos!

It seems to me like the entire article is NPOV in that it contains mainly inflammatory quotes (along with a big disclaimer about their accuracy, despite the fact that they were selected by her critics). I'm gonna be bold and add an NPOV tag, but I'd say that as the article currently stands, there's only about 5-6 sentences of NPOV material there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.125.206 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I cut out the quotes and I think it is a big improvement. Anything else you think needs to be changed? Turtlescrubber (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And now they've been readded. I agree that they are a large part of her notability, but their inclusion here seems to me to be biased and bad encyclopedic form. Thus, I am going to remove them again. If they're readded, I think we'll need a mod to lock or to make a decision in this case. Does anyone know who a good mod to ask would be?--66.65.125.206 (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mamalujo, please, come here to talk with me. I want to resolve this issue, and I've left a message on your talk page about it. I don't wanna start an edit war.

For the record, then, I suppose i'll state the elements of my position, first on the article, and then personally--to air any bias that I may have in advance of a discussion.

For the article

• I contend that an Living Person Bio that consists of, if not a majority, then a commanding plurality of quotes specifically publicised by those who object to the subject of the bio cannot be NPOV.
• I've looked at some of her other writing, and it is far less objectionable. Therefore, the bio is unrepresentative, if nothing else.
• If she is only notable for the controversy then the article should be stripped and the controversy should be given its own article, taking all of the quotes here with it. If she is notable for anything else, then why does the article consist mainly of these quotes?

Personally speaking

• I disagree with the position of the Catholic Church as regards birth control, women's rights, etc.
• I feel that the tone of quotes used here is unsupportable, and that Amanda Marcotte should not have said what she said.
• I feel that the use of a disagreement on policy to malign the faith, honesty, and religion of Catholics is unconsciencable, and demeans both sides of the debate.

So come on, Mamalujo--or any other editor who objects. You reverted within hours--twice. I'd like to see if we can come to a compromise position or a third settlement.

--66.65.125.206 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been 4 days. This is a 1-day warning: on Wednesday I will delete the quotes. I do not wish to enter an edit war, but without a response to my concerns I have nothing to do but change the page.--66.65.125.206 (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This site never ceases to amaze. Creating an article about an insignificant nobody and then leaving out the very words that brought her the slightest ounce of fame is akin to doing an entry on the Muhammad cartoons without actually providing a picture of those cartoons. You can skip all the bullshit obfuscation as anyone with half a brain knows that the quotes were left out because they made Marcotte look like the hateful bitch she clearly is. Once again, the left wing guardians of Wikipedia have made circling the wagons, in order to protect a liberal, a higher priority than telling the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 27 November 2010

Appropriation controversy

Hi, Why did you think of the removal of the material recently added to the Amanda Marcotte article as bizarre? (I mean, sincerely, not aggressively, asking!) I checked the references and they were just to a blog accusing her of plagiarizing it, and then a couple other blogs discussing that accusation. My reaction to that was the strong impression of a manufactured controversy with no substantiating third-party coverage cited, and especially not sources of the sort required by the living-persons-biography standards. The material recently added appears to be added by someone close to the original source. I mean, I can't just accuse George Bush of something on my blog, get the attention of a couple other blogs, and then write (or have an ally write) a whole section of the George Bush article about the "controversy" over that accusation. That's not legit. material, especially for a living person. Isn't it original research? Or, do you feel I am misreading the situation? Thanks for your opinion, CHE (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

CHE, I think you make really good points about the use of blogs in a biography. And I agree that we need to be especially wary of a section of an article that only relies upon blogs. However, I disagree with you that this is a "manufactured controversy." Marcotte herself was involved in the controversy, responding to the charges multiple times (although she never addressed it at her own blog). And googling "Amanda Marcotte" and "appropriation" returns dozens of results specifically addressing the controversy (although something tells me that including another half dozen or so sources wouldn't adequately respond to your objections). While I recognize that there are *no* reliable secondary sources here, I don't know that the section needs secondary sources because the blogosphere is particularly relevant for Marcotte, given that she is notable for blogging. Does that make sense/is that legitimate? Marcotte is a blogger, so a controversy that is relegated only to the blogosphere is still incredibly relevant but lacking in reliable sources.

Aside from the two unsourced paragraphs in the middle, which you noted appear to be added by someone close to the source, I don't see the OR. Are you saying there's synthesis that is OR? I see two instances that need to be re-written (the quotation at the end of the first sentence [relying on a blog as a secondary source] and the very last phrase of the section [synthesizing material]), but I just don't see how the section constitues original research. -- Irn (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are reliable sources for reporting what blogs have to say, and she's most famous for being a blogger, so it's relevant. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that it was a "manufactured controversy"; the charges of racism against Marcotte comes to mind as one of the single biggest conflagrations in the entire history of the feminist blogosphere, and by the peak, sparked such unanimous criticism even from her past supporters that her book had to be reprinted and her publisher found itself the subject of an academic boycott. It's the most high-profile moment of her career apart from the Edwards mess, and this would be an incomplete and biased article without mention of it. Rebecca (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. (Note that this wasn't about the book section.) What I meant by "manufactured" was not a denial that something real happened, nor that many people are interested in the issue. My position was that it is not sufficient for writing about something in WP that it really happened, nor even that it is considered important. Rebecca writes that "Blogs are reliable sources for reporting what blogs have to say"; but the no-OR policy explicitly forbids reporting at all. It is Original Research to develop in an article here a narrative from primary sources, even if the events described are true, and even if editors consider them to be extremely important. My issue is simply that documentation in "reliable, third-party sources" is a sine qua non: For public figures:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

And for less-known people, if it's relevant,

Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.

Whether she counts as a Public Figure, or less-known, the secondary-source standard for inclusion is, and ought to be, high for living-person bios. Especially when the subject-matter is serious allegations of misdeeds, like plagiarism. In this case, none of the sources cited appeared to me to be reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Right? CHE (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the notion of original research. There's no need to develop a narrative there; the affair already exists, and it's just covering something in the article that badly needs to be covered, by mentioning relevant and high-profile sources.

This was such a significant affair that there's no way this article could ever remotely be considered for GA status (let alone FA status) without mention of it; to cull this stuff (on pretty querulous grounds IMHO) has the effect of whitewashing the article. I'll say this again: her book had to be reprinted because there was such an outcry over racism charges, and it led to her publisher finding itself the subject of an academic boycott. This is kinda pertinent stuff.

Moreover, this is not a matter of some random anonymous smear on some random blog. This was a near-universal outcry of feminist bloggers, many prominent and writing under their own names, making clear charges of appropriation - and then, more prominently, of racism in the book's illustrations. The veracity of this is not in doubt; both Marcotte and her publisher issued apologies for the latter, and there's enough people who put their names to the former charge to be citing the charges to actual people. Rebecca (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I have no dog in this. I just came over to learn what if anything had happened to Marcotte. This section is just agenda-driven ramble. No decent encyclopeadia would include such a triviality and even worse, turn it into a multi paragraph harangue. If the folks who added this stuff had any respect for Wikipedia they would remove it post-haste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.197.242 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Triviality." So I guess that ripping off the words of lesser-known but equally hard-working bloggers is "trivial," as is using racially questionable (at *best*) imagery on her book cover and in the book itself? Oh, wait, Marcotte is internet-famous, and, well, she's white. And everybody who objected was JUST JELLUS!!! Am I right? Gawd, it's not a pretty sight when people trip over their own privilege. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.75.249 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the comment above. Looks like Marcotte was falsely accused of something and then rail roaded into defending herself. It looks like she actually knew the people who were accusing her which is probably why she bothered to give them the time of day. But the public display of it only gave her accusers more fodder for appropriation charges. It almost seems like the real plan was to get Marcotte to promote the accuser's blogs and get them some free publicity. Whatever it was, it is a shame that someone can be smeared like this and then it is "verified" by a bunch of biased anonymous bloggers on the internet. Even conservatives, who would love to see Marcotte taken down, are with her on this one. This whole appropriation section should be deleted entirely for the sake of ethics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MH14 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"CHE" and the above commenter, in a nutshell: "My white privilege, let me show you it." It's basic courtesy to link to the blogs of the people you quote, or otherwise credit them; BrownFemiPower et al. had every right to expect that. It's not a search for "free publicity." As for "bias," apparently the only viewpoint free of bias is that of white folks, eh? Nice harrumphing in defense of Marcotte, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.75.249 (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned user, I don't know how the first sentence is intended to relate to my comments. Re: the second sentence, you do realize that the material I mentioned was removed included removing all the quotations from those blogs, so that no material of theirs was left to be cited? Then, these comments about bias are non sequiturs. Your rhetorical question does not connect with anything I wrote. I was writing about Wikipedia's standards for citation and sourcing. Not really sure how that involves race. CHE (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

POV

Marcotte makes outright lies such as all pro-life atheists are sexist or North Dakota's personhood bill gives rights sperm more rights than women and nobody flinches? 128.146.46.2 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, why does every single aspect about her need to be included in this article? --Benfergy (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag added - Is it really needed?

While the article does focus on her "controversies" -- and it isn't a holistic picture of her life. It does appear to be an accurate picture of the parts of her life as they are covered in reliable sources as required by WP:Verify and WP:BLP

I've tried to find some additional "positive" things to include from reliable sources but I'm not having much luck. I was able to add this to the lead: Time magazine described her as "an outspoken voice of the left" and said "there is a welcome wonkishness to Marcotte, who, unlike some star bloggers, is not afraid to parse policy with her readers" -- while also describing her blogging as "provocative and profanity-laced".

But the challenge is that the Reliable Sources have covered her critics and their comments -- and not her supporters. Even when Marcotte herself writes about her biggest controversy[4] -- she links to many RS that have negative things to say about her (or quote her critics) -- but her only link to something that supports her (that I can find) is a blog post that quotes other self-published blogs[5]. Nothing that is usable on Wikipedia.

Also, the nature of the beast is that Reliable Sources are much more likely to cover bloggers' posts that blow-up ... than their posts that are lavished with praise. Hoping To Help (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Contentious versus WP:WEIGHT

Also, I don't think anything included in the article is contentious. I imagine even Marcotte would agree that everything there is both WP:Verifiable and true. (As in: verifiable and true that she was criticized -- not that the criticism was necessarily valid.)

The article cites reliable sources (including Marcotte herself) that describe people criticizing her for things that she published. Everyone agrees that she wrote/published these things -- and that she was then criticized. So the WP article isn't making any contentious claims.

I think the issue is that when one reads the article it appears to violate WP:Weight -- because it focuses almost exclusively on her controversies. So the solution, as User:Collect pointed out above, is to find positive reliable sourced statements to include.

But I think we're likely to find that the article does at least come close to reflecting the WP:Weight of the information found in reliable sources. While still giving an unbalanced picture of her life as a whole -- but given WP policies of WP:Verify and WP:NOR there really isn't any way to fix that.

Given all this, the article doesn't seem to be in violation of WP:NPOV. It is using a neutral point of view to describe the notable parts of her life as covered by the reliable sources.

Hoping To Help (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think that content discussing controversies Marcotte has been involved in should not be deleted. WP:NPOV demands that if there is significant disagreement over a subject, all sides of the controversy be aired in a neutral manner without favoring one side. I also want to note that WP:BLP does not in any way trump WP:NPOV and demand a "sympathetic point of view" of living persons, but simply demands a high standard of verifiability. There are undue wight concerns with the present state of the article, though, and this comes up time and again with biographical articles. This is generally because there is only so much energy to go around Wikipedia for people to do the grunt work of putting together a thorough biographical article, but if somebody is involved in a controversy within the last few years, people will definitely make sure it gets written up here. The solution, I think, is to expand the article as much as possible and include a "Reception" section in the article that includes mention of those praising and damning Marcotte. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem, as you observe, is that no one is apparently willing to expand articles like this one with neutral or positive content; so it remains in its current state, a quasi-attack page that would better be titled List of Amanda Marcotte controversies. I'm tempted to take it back to AFD, but the fact it's been kept three times before doesn't give much hope there. Maybe I'll create a discussion on the BLP noticeboard instead. Robofish (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've done so. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Amanda Marcotte. Robofish (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Accusing Anonymous Man of Making a False Rape Accusation Against His Partner as Form Of Abuse

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/09/19/is-it-rape-if-you-dont-mean-for-it-to-be-rape/#comment-526375

Not much to add other than she said it was orders of magnitude more likely a man had faked being raped in his sleep by his girlfriend with the intent of gaslighting her than it was that he slept through sex.

"Statistically speaking, abuse is exponentially more likely than that level of sleepwalking. I’d give him more benefit of the doubt if he wasn’t making her feel bad for responding enthusiastically to a man who—may I remind you—woke her up in the middle of the night for sex. If a woman was like, “Hell yeah, fuck me!” like this guy basically was, and then said she was violated later, she would also be a jerk pulling a head trip. The demand that he read his mind and somehow know that he wanted the opposite of what he claimed in the moment is pretty classic gas lighting.

Like I said, it’s possible. But the combination of both the oddness of the incident and his blaming her for taking enthusiastic consent as enthusiastic consent suggests that the likelier explanation is he woke her up for sex, she went with it, and he decided to concoct a strange story that conveniently means she feels guilty and will likely be afraid to set boundaries with him in the future, out of guilt. Statistically speaking, about 100 to 1,000 times more likely, I’d say." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.112.34 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 October 2012

The End Of The Pandagon Blog?

There needs to be an explanation of when and why the blog ended. Pandagon.net was a popular blog for many years, and Amanda was one of the main writers at that time.

If I look here I can see the blog is gone:

http://pan dagon.net/

If I look up the domain on whois.net, I can see that the domain transfer occurred on 14-Jun-2012:

http://whois.net/whois/pandagon.net

There is no separate entry on Wikipedia for the blog, but rather, "pandagon" redirects to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandagon

Therefore something should be added saying that the blog has ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marleymanbob (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the story is, but it looks like Pandagon still exists as a blog, just at a different host: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/category/pandagon/. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

disabled the cited link. that is now a commercial propaganda blog for e-cigarettes which gets free page ranking by this link. we shouldnt do that. Wefa (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

POV & Weight

Reading the article I was struck by the fact that most of the text is describing the problems that those who disagree with her have, rather than a description of her life and work. Obviously, she is a writer that generates a lot of controversy, but still, the majority of the article should be an accurate description of her work, and reactions to the work should follow. I'm going to set about correcting this. 212.67.168.234 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur. I've started to add some information about her current work, and some past awards for her writing. Cap020570 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the section criticising of her book illustrations. That criticism doesn't seem significant enough to deserve a section here, and it was only attributed to blogs - articles about living people need better sources. Robofish (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a year since this was brought up and no other opinions noted. I'm going to begin re-wording. And to the people who went back and forth about the lacrosse team section... where is the discussion? My plan is to leave just the facts: wrote a blog post, received criticism, deleted it. There's no need for the history of the case. It can be linked if there is an WP article.Cap020570 (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Duke section is currently worded a bit strangely. If memory serves me correctly, there was a larger outcry about her attempts to deny the lacrosse players a fair trial than there was of her condemning what they were falsely accused of doing. 65.92.13.155 (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Duke sanitization

I undid this revert. It is an uncontested fact that Marcotte used the phrase "rape-loving scum", and a reliable, mainstream source (still referenced in the article) cites this specific phrase as a point of controversy. It isn't clear how the single sentence quoting Cathy Young would be WP:UNDUE, either. Young is a prominent, mainstream writer and her complaint about Marcotte is representative of the large backlash that eventually led to Marcotte's resignation. If the page is going to mention a "shitstorm" of "criticism", it seems strange to quote no one but Marcotte herself. KateWishing (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing Sourced Material

An admin removed sourced material with the justification that "these don't seem to be particularly important comments or commenters", but I think a book by Kirsten Powers and an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times are legitimate WP:RS and thus "important". Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)