Talk:Only Words (book)

Reception Section entirely biased

IMO the reception section entirely biased towards hostile receptions and reviews. On Amazon (which can be used as a yardstick for public reception) there were as many positive reviews as there were negative. And reading through the articles a couple of more times I think the whole article is negatively biased.

Look at this list positive of reviews for "Only Words"

Very selective choice of quotes

The writer seems to have taken only the controversial quotes, which color MacKinnon up as an extremist. How about including a less sensationalist and more humane quote, for example this one, taken from The Guardian, Apr. 12 2006:

"Our approach is not to ban, but to offer a civil remedy to people who can prove they were harmed - rather than empowering the police and putting people in jail, which doesn't do any good anyway. Pornographers keep their businesses going in jail."

The quote from the Independent is accurate, and correctly conveys the negative assessment of that review. The other reviews reflect the negative reception the book generally received, and produce the substantive critiques that were leveled against MacKinnon's position. Needless to say, academic reviewers are not bound to reflect the average rating on Amazon.com. Appropriately, the available positive review from The Los Angeles Times is also cited. I recommend removing the undue weight banner.68.232.117.141 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious statistics repeated in quote

In a section of this article, close to the beginning and starting with “thirty-eight percent ...”, a list of statistics is quoted from the book. The footnote from the book itself, #7, shows simply a list of publications (see below). The quote does not mention where they apply, in the U.S.? The world?, Nor does it say when, what period of time to which they apply.

The slipshod work of the book is thus repeated in the article by quoting it verbatim and without comment. In doing so, the numbers, which are doubtful in any reality, may be taken as fact by the unwary. The quote should be removed. Barring that, some disclaimer or advisory is a weak corrective but might help.

This is the source she gives, note the lack of pages or any context:

7. “Diana E. H. Russell, The Secret Trauma (1986) and Rape in Marriage (1990); United States Merit Protection Board, Sexual Harassment of Federal Workers: Is It a Problem? (1981); Sexual Harassment of Federal Workers: An Update (1988); Majority Staff of U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Violence against Women: A Week in the Life of America (1992).”

Sych (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Sychon[reply]