Talk:Intercourse (book)

"Long" quotes are necessary, in this case.

This subject is a perfect example of the fact that sometimes "long" quotes are necessary. The quotes are the size they need to be. Futurepower(R) (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

propose to delete Over-Quotation tag

I propose to delete the Over-Quotation template. It may apply to some articles of similar length with as many and as lengthy quotations, but this book has often been cntroverted for whether it said or didn't say a particular thing and only quotations will preclude most of that debate and allow focusing on meaning, effect, and other matters. Therefore, I don't propose to edit the quotations or move them to Wikiquote. I may even add a box to the talk page justifying the present quotation proportionality. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. And I didn't make the box for the talk page because I don't think it's needed now, since a discussion on point is already on this talk page and it probably won't be archived for a long while. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

subordinate clause or two predicates

When the lead was recently rewritten, it began, "Intercourse is a 1987 book by Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist analysis of sexual intercourse in literature and society." I edited the sentence to "Intercourse is a 1987 book by Andrea Dworkin and is a radical feminist analysis of sexual intercourse in literature and society." The previous editor reverted on the ground of "[b]ad grammar. The lead was properly written before that edit."

As the sentence stands, "a radical feminist analysis of sexual intercourse in literature and society" is a subordinate clause, preceded by a comma. That would be acceptable except that it modifies not "Intercourse is a 1987 book" but what immediately precedes the comma, specifically, "Andrea Dworkin". Thus, it says that Dworkin is an analysis. I don't think either of us intends that literal meaning. The way I wrote the sentence was to make two predicates share a grammatical subject, namely, the book. The book is by Dworkin and the book is an analysis. In fact, it is true that the book is by Dworkin and it is true that the book is an analysis. While it is interesting to deem that Dworkin is an analysis in a metaphorical or figurative sense, it is like saying that "Jim Smith is sadness personified", "Pat is your shoulder", or "Chris is our backbone". While we should paraphrase into our own words, such a formulation requires poetic license not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, except in a quotation.

(Linking and boldfacing omitted from quotations.)

I'd like to know what other editors think. I'll wait a week before making any change to the sentence.

Nick Levinson (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Edited; and corrected one excess bracket: 09:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look at the article's revision history? I changed it again since reverting you, so the wording you objected to ("Intercourse is a 1987 book by Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist analysis of sexual intercourse in literature and society") is no longer there. Why, then, do you perceive a problem? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't look at histories at 60-second intervals. I was not the last to edit it, I could and did assume that you had completed your edit, and it wasn't likely anyone else would edit in between (this isn't an article with an unusually high frequency of edits, like one for a sitting U.S. President). I saw the revision when I checked my watchlist on general principle after finishing with the Talk.

Your new edit is fine and solves the problem. Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent revert in article text

Why was the information reverted and simply not corrected? [1] Also before removing the information why was what was possibly wrong not discussed here on the article talk page? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the passage in the article as of right now.

Some critics, such as Gene Healy and Cathy Young, claimed that they found Dworkin's explanation hard to square with her frequent willingness to criticize ordinary heterosexual practices as violent or coercive. Young went on to claim that, given Dworkin's expressed views, arguments over whether Dworkin actually said that heterosexual intercourse is rape can be dismissed as "quibbling". Stating Dworkin was "anti-sex". I editor LoveMonkey added the sentence "Stating Dworkin was "anti-sex". In order to conform the statement to the source given.

The passage "(Cathy) Young went on to claim that, given Dworkin's expressed views, arguments over whether Dworkin actually said that heterosexual intercourse is rape can be dismissed as "quibbling"."

However there is nothing dismissive about Young's comments in the article used to source the passage. As Cathy Young first declares that Dworkin was Anti-Sex. The way the passage is written right now is unrepresentative of the article used to source it. Is there another article or comments from Cathy Young that state that she finds people making arguments that Dworkin was Anti-Sex or that heterosexual intercourse is rape should be "dismissed" at all from any type of criteria let alone because it was quibbling?

Here is that passage from the source given that uses the word "quibbling".

Whatever her defenders say, Dworkin was anti-sex. No, she may not have ever written the actual words "All sex is rape" or "All sexual intercourse is rape." But she did extensively argue, in particular in the 1987 book, Intercourse, that (1) all heterosexual sex in our "patriarchal" society is coercive and degrading to women, and (2) sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and "may be immune to reform." A chapter from the book, filled with such insights as, "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women," can be found here. (Again, if a male writer had written book after book arguing that women were evil creatures whose sole purpose in life is to sexually manipulate and destroy men, would we spend a lot of time quibbling over whether he actually used the phrase, "All women are whores"?) In the 1976 book, Our Blood (p. 13), Dworkin had this to say about a feminist transformation of sexuality: "For men I suspect that this transformation begins in the place they most dread -- that is, in a limp penis. I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together." (Gee... can you say "castrating"?)

Cathy Young is not saying that people calling Dworkin's whatever can be dismissed as quibbling. Or at least not in the source given to source the passage in the article right now.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You added the following text to the article: 'Stating Dworkin was "anti-sex".' The words, 'Stating Dworkin was "anti-sex"', do not form a grammatically correct, or even fully comprehensible, English sentence. Please do not add semi-comprehensible sentence fragments to articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I am requesting that some sort of a statement that correctly reflects Cathy Young's position in the source given be included in the article. Per your statement I will now construct and add a statement that is a complete sentence. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Quotations

I believe that the article includes unreasonably long quotations from and about the book. Per WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

Unreasonably long quotations violate this rule. They may also involve at least potential, if not necessarily actual, copyright violation. Unfortunately recent good-faith editing by PaulThePony appears to be making this problem worse. I have had to remove a good faith addition here. I not only stand by removing that addition, I think that existing material in the article needs to be cut back further. For example, the quotation from Dworkin that begins "This is nihilism" is obviously much, much too long for an encyclopedia entry. It should be removed and replaced with a briefer summary of the ideas expressed in that passage. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

PaulThePony, I'm sorry, but in addition to adding unreasonably long quotations your recent edits violate basic policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV. They add personal commentary that clearly expresses your personal opinions about Dworkin and about Intercourse, and that is unacceptable. For example, a passage such as "Nevertheless, that subjective conclusion is not factually demonstrable within Dworkin's own work, whether books, essays, speeches, or interviews" simply expresses your personal opinion that Dworkin's critics are wrong. Though you have added (very long) passages from Intercourse to try to support your views, the content you added is still clearly original research. To keep the article neutral there is no other option than to remove such material. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

As an additional point: could you also pleasure ensure that you use accurate edit summaries? In this edit you used the edit summary "Edited several paragraphs to make them shorter, more succinct"; the edit actually added a large new passage of text, making the summary you used blatantly inaccurate. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Freeknowledgecreator. I'm responding to your points, hopefully. :) As you noted, I had put in a few long quotes, using the large one above mine as a guide. I assumed mine shouldn't be any longer than the "this is nihilism" quote and, significantly, as the edit history should indicate, I did not place that very long quote in the page; it was there before I arrived. So I'll request that any determinations about my disregard or dishonesty take that into account. I don't dispute that some passages I added may be (are) too long and will read up on the material you linked me to, with thanks. I'm sure that will clarify a lot that I am fuzzy about as a relatively inexperienced editor. There was no intent to disregard rules and guidelines. As evidence, I submit my editing history on that page. I kept refining my changes to be sure they didn't violate any recommendations. (Wrong though I was!) As for appropriateness of the quotes I added, I believe they, with my introductions to them, directly spoke to the central matter at hand on that part of the page. Did AD or didn't she state "All heterosexual intercourse is rape"? I believe I supplied solid evidence that factually, the answer is "No, she didn't." With regard to the interview, yes: I definitely added to that because I believed what I tacked on added needed context for AD's response, that being Michael's comment and question, as well as the last line which had been omitted by whoever posted the portion. Re: "Nevertheless, that subjective conclusion is not factually demonstrable within Dworkin's own work, whether books, essays, speeches, or interviews", do you not think her comments are subjective and express unproven views about the author? And, I guess one point I'm also fuzzy about is the quality of that sentence of mine. I've added to a quote from an interview, backed that up with passages in the book, and the other person provides us nothing. Can you appreciate why this is confusing and seems inconsistent? However inadequately, I self-corrected any anticipated problems. In the self-correction process, I changed more subjective language to that which was backed up immediately from an outside source. Two other things. 1. Why were my quotes removed but the longest one not? In other words, if the one there is the most glaring example of poor judgment and exists as a problematic element, why has it not been removed by you? This speaks to a matter of fairness. 2. I'm unclear when subjectivity is allowed. If you concur that the quotes of Young are not objective and also contradict what is factually presented, I don't understand why that is acceptable. I saw it as similar to someone on a page about climate change adding, "Despite the evidence, I don't believe that's the case" without backing it up and without having a working link to a source. So, I'd very much appreciate you helping me to understand those two points and further clarify things. But it is on me to read up and learn more. With thanks for alerting me to all of this, and with hope that my good faith status will be reinstated due to me not embracing or arguing for anything done in bad faith or consciously making poor decisions. Paul--PaulThePony (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The long quotation that was already in the article when you began editing is much too long to be appropriate. Although I am not going to remove it just now, it is my opinion that it ought to be removed, and replaced with an appropriately brief summary of the ideas that it expresses. The "introductions" you added to the quotes from Intercourse are an example of original research. I accept that they were added in good faith; thank you for trying to improve the article. Unfortunately content like that really isn't acceptable. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll add this question, re: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." I fully concur. I wondered this myself but since it was there, focused as it was on one matter peripheral to the whole of the book, I didn't assume engaging on the topic was out of bounds. I hope you can appreciate that. Paul--PaulThePony (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Controversy Section's second paragraph needed rewording to make sense of it.

I went and rewrote part of the second paragraph from the Controversy section since it made little sense as originally written. If I understand what they original intent was, it was arguing that her defender's argue that Dvorkin's critics are misinterpreting her book Intercourse as arguing that "All sex is rape". I change the part about "many observers" since the source used doesn't support that many observers claim she is being misinterpreted. Some sources have looked into this claim and agreed that she literally didn't say "all sex is rape" but also point out that she is quoted as saying ""Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent." which is technically not saying "all sex is rape" but comes very close to basically saying that. I also have an issue with the source used here. It appears to be written by feminist author Nikki Craft so I listed her as an example of one of the observers/defenders making the argument that she didn't argue that "all sex is rape" but a second better source is needed to argue that other observers/defenders make this argument. The page of supposed lies about Dvorkin Craft is claims to debunk lacks any source to verify things claimed on the page and in some cases seems to be Craft's own argument about Dvorkin, such as she couldn't be anti-sex because she her "early fiction is especially rich with narration about both lesbian and heterosexual lovemaking..." ignoring the fact that by the time she wrote Intercourse, her views on heterosexual sex may have change (sort of like a former porn star retiring and becoming an anti-porn activist) or that she may view fictional sex as different from actual sex in real life. We need better source for this defense of the book then Nikki Craft's nostatusquo website. 2600:1700:56A0:4680:CCAD:B18B:C4AF:79E3 (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't add your own analysis to this article, which you have done all over Wikipedia's talk pages as Special:Contributions/2600:1700:6759:B000:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2600:1700:56A0:4680:0:0:0:0/64. You are violating WP:No original research. Cut it out. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)