Talk:Germaine Greer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lysistrata

Germaine Greer did not simply "translate" Aristophanes, she adapted it into a new version, with a more feminist message. Article just says she "translated" it.

CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence again

The lead sentence has been problematic for years, see the talk above and in the archives for the history. My problem with the assertion that Greer is "widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century" is that the text is not verifiable. As before, I am not saying that the text is not true, merely that it is unreferenced. I intend to water down the text if references cannot be found. --Surturz (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE for nearly five months. I've made the change. --Surturz (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Greer's place in intellectual history - an expert, balanced survey of this would be good

I realise this would be very difficult to do without being attacked for bias or lack of comprehensiveness - but I'm not the only one I'm sure who would appreciate a section covering this. Some of this is covered in the detailed sections but some help to give us readers a wider and deeper perspective would be good.

For instance, where is she placed in the feminist firmament compared with others? How is she thought to have materially influenced (or not) broader thought and action?

To what extent is her place in history one of intellectual endeavour as compared with publicising of ideas and causes?

An assessment of her reception and influence (or lack of) in various parts of the world would also interesting to read (though some information on this is given in the article such as that her book, The Female Eunuch, sold very well and was translated into many languages. 124.185.120.208 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet another whitewash

Not surprisingly, this article makes no mention of Greer's refusal to condemn the fatwa against Salman Rushdie or her seeming implication that he deserved it. Also not mentioned are her statements in defense of the banning of women from driving in various Muslim countries, her statements concerning the wearing of burkas to protest the war in Afghanistan and her refusal to condemn honor killings in the Islamic world when specifically asked to do so. Instead we get a bunch of nonsense claiming a marginal writer is some sort of intellectual giant. Even more pathetic is the ridiculous attempt to explain away her clear statements in regards to genital mutilation, as if most women are freely choosing to have the procedure performed on them. Moreover, this article is full of value judgements that do not belong in an encyclopedia. One of the most egregious examples is the following: "She questioned THE PERHAPS SIMPLISTIC VIEW that female genital mutilation was necessarily imposed by men on women rather than by women on women, or even freely chosen, adducing some anecdotal evidence to the contrary..."(emphasis mine). It is absolutely no business of an unbiased encyclopedia to provide cover for a particular subject by claiming that certain views really deserve to be criticized because they are "perhaps simplistic". Also, nowhere does this entry explain that some of the "body mutilation" Greer claims is equal to female genital mutilation is breast augmentation surgery, as if a grown woman choosing to have breast implants is morally equivalent to being forced to have your genitals mutilated as a child. It is pretty self-evident why such a clarification is not provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. There is no grand conspiracy here. Wikipedia is a project that anyone can edit. It is a work in progress created entirely by volunteers. There is no hidden body of writers scribbling a party line or getting paid to concoct wild tales. The articles are not perfect and have never claimed to be so. This one in particular hasn't had many editors working on it, tidying and updating it. We are not here to create hagiography or plaster condemnation. We aim to present a verifiable, neutral point of view. Judging Greer for what she has or has not said is no business of ours. Whether editors like her or not, agree with her or not, has no bearing. We use strong secondary sources to build an encyclopaedia, not to make arguments. I have removed the editorialising comment you pointed out. Span (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah OK, but from memory it was Greer herself who suggested that the view that genital mutilation was inflicted by men on women was simplistic, based on her claimed extensive experience on talking to women who'd been cut. This article attracts a lot of people hostile to the subject who want to inflict a POV on it. ¬¬¬¬

Criticism of transgenderism

The category Category:Critics of transgenderism and transsexualism was removed for being "unsourced". The article mentions her criticism of transgenderism in the "The Whole Woman" in the chapter 'Pantomime Dames' and details her criticisms of transgenderism from a feminist point of view. She's expressed views critical of transgenderism elsewhere as well, http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/aug/20/germaine-greer-caster-semenya. I think that the category should be included. Maybe some more sources need to be added, but she has made a variety of criticisms of transgenderism. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have re-add the cat. Span (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NOT an Emeritus Professor at Warwick University

See the first and third archived talk pages for earlier discussions.This would seem to a genuine complaint by Germaine Greer herself on this persistently made error: Wikipedia:Help desk#Germaine Greer. For the record, no page on www2.warwick.ac.uk (the University of Warwick's website) identifies Greer as being an Emeritus Professor, always as "former Professor" or just "Professor". Philip Cross (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute

I've noted that a content dispute has arisen between Mariannathoms (talk · contribs) and Solarra (talk · contribs) regarding Ms Greer's views on transgender issues. In order to avoid an edit war, I invite both parties to discuss the issue here and see if the community can help the matter come to a consensus. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "controversial" in describing her as a radical feminist (cf radical feminism) when she is one of the world's preeminent radical feminists. The removal of her well known criticism[1] of transsexualism is nothing but politically motivated censorship and vandalism of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannathoms (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To "facilitate" this, I've fully protected the article for three days. This seemed preferable to handing out blocks for 3RR violations. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To me was just a matter of what appeared to be vandalism. Honestly I have no feeling on the subject matter, but to me tagging an article from feminist to radical feminist seems to violate WP:NPOV. I see new accounts created to do this all the time and saw this as another example of NPOV vandalism. Nothing personal towards anyone :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It was indeed a matter of vandalism, viz. the highly disruptive vandalism perpetrated by Solarra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannathoms (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, there is nothing "violating NPOV" in describing a radical feminist as a radical feminist. Radical feminism is one of the largest and most established streams of modern feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannathoms (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I personally have no feelings on the matter, just want to make sure WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are followed. If the term 'radical feminist' can be sourced I'd be 100% for it's inclusion as it would be accurate and sourced. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

John Hoffman and ‎Paul Graham in their chapter on Feminism in Introduction to Political Ideologies (2006, p. 187) describes her as a "well-known radical feminist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannathoms (talk • contribs) 14:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

By all means add the information than, like I said to me I saw it like tagging Barack Obama with 'communist' or George W. Bush with 'Nazi.' I'm real careful with BLP stuff because it can cause a whole lot of harm if it is incorrect. If there is any way I can help you I'd be more than happy to in any way I can. My apologies for all of this! :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Describing her as a radical feminist is not comparable to describing Bush as "Nazi". There is nothing derogatory in itself in describing someone as a radical feminist. Radical feminists frequently call themselves radical. She is widely regarded, and celebrated in some circles, as one of the world's most prominent, if not the most prominent, radical feminists. It's more comparable to describing the leader of a communist party as a communist. Mariannathoms (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Noted for future reference :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There was no need for the article to have been protected. The edits by Mariannathoms were disruptive, and that editor should have been blocked. No justification was given for giving Greer's views on transsexualism a section by themselves; I believe that doing so over-states their importance, and also confused the organization of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there should be no objection if Greer is described here as a "radical feminist" if a source for that sobriquet is included (Hoffman and Graham, 2006 ?). The repeated edits by User:Mariannathoms, e.g. here, did not include such a reference. Instead, Mariannathoms hijacked the existing reference to the EB which doesn't support that term.

I do object, however, to the part of the edit which introduces a new section header, "Criticism of transsexuality", and a Greer quote from the Guardian. I think both are unnecessary because they add nothing to the article; Greer's views on transsexuality were already covered and Mariannathoms added nothing. In that, I agree with the edit summary of the first revert by FreeKnowledgeCreator: "Not such a good idea to give her views about transsexuals a section unto itself."

Going further, I think none of the other quotes currently in the article are necessary; they should be distilled into the narration. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As an outside observer with no opinion one way or the other about the actual content of the article, but only wishing to help resolve the content dispute that had arisen, I have to fault Solarra for reacting to Marianna's changes by calling them vandalism. Marianna's changes constituted a change in tone of the page, and possibly violated neutrality, but they were within the realm of reasonableness, and should have been dealt with through open dialog rather than edit reversion and talk page templating that never addressed the real issue. That is why the temporary protection was applied, and that is why this discussion was opened in the first place. Dialog. Consensus. Those things that make Wikipedia work. It appears to me that Marianna and Solarra have already come to an agreement on the nature of the content. Other editors are now expressing their opinions. Exactly as it should be. Carry on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of Beautiful Boy

An appraisal can be made by the experience of Maplethorpe. I remember the rage of controversy in the early 1990s with regards to exhibitions of his work. Maplethorpe had his own studio, made his own photographs (as opposed to pictures of the works of other artists) and was eventually vindicated as a true artist. Maplethorpe had been accused of pedophilia, pornography and worst! By comparison, I would say Greer dodged the bullet quite easily.TonyMath (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Later career

The later career section is largely just gossip or varying levels of importance or interest. Maybe if it was entitled "Germaine Greer as Celebrity", or something of the sort, that would be better.The fact that her house was broken into by a stalker for example is hardly part of her "career". To treat that kind of material as such has a diminishing effect, intended or not Jeremy (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful Boy

I have removed the following from the introduction and replaced it with a bland sentence to the effect that GG has always been controversial. Apart from giving undue weight to the issue in the introduction it is also bad for the "labelled by some" weasel words. The issue is dealt with in the article and indeed inits own article and that is enough.

Following the publication of her highly controversial book 'The Beautiful Boy' in 2003, Greer has been labelled by some as promoting paedophilia with Greer herself describing the depiction of adolescent males in her own book as "full of pictures of 'ravishing' pre-adult boys with hairless chests, wide-apart legs and slim waists". She goes on to say that, "I know that the only people who are supposed to like looking at pictures of boys are a subgroup of gay men". ¬¬¬¬(Jeremy Dixon, my signature doesn't seem to be working)

WP:EL

Laurencebeck, would you please read WP:EL? External links are usually meant to go in the external links section, at the end of the article. Edits like this are inappropriate. I'm going to have to revert it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

OVERLINK

Just noting that I'm removing excessive blue links per WP:OVERLINK. There's no need to link ordinary words, newspaper titles, etc, especially not repeatedly. It's also better not to link within quotations, unless it's a very unusual or important word. Sarah ^(talk) 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support the sentiments of the guideline WP:OVERLINK, but there are exceptions; tables and lists often contain repeated wikilinks, as do references, where links also help to establish some degree of reliability. The New York Times probably doesn't need a link, the The Daily Examiner certainly does, and there are many in-between. It should be remembered that the English-language Wikipedia is read by many for whom English is not their 1st language and whose grasp of English-language publications is sketchy. In the specific context of Greer, I find a blue sea of Guardian links in the references quite instructive, but others might not share this level of superficiality in assessing the political stance of a subject. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

London header

Laurence, I'd like to remove this again. This section is about her education at Cambridge. She was still there when she wrote those articles, and the section ends with her being awarded the PhD. I'm going to find out when she moved to London and work it into the text. Sarah ^(talk) 21:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've re-ordered this a bit, because it seems she had left Cambridge by then. I'm still not sure that she did move to London, though she may have when she was briefly married. The marriage and articles for Oz etc are now in the career section. Sarah ^(talk) 05:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Miss Greer was very definitely in London in the late middle 1960's, thus taking her into the 1970's there.
___________ A lot of hard work.  :–) . . .All the best.--Laurencebeck (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Female Eunuch cover

I've removed the book cover because it's non-free. Someone uploaded it to Commons, so it will deleted soon. We would have to claim fair use, but I think that's allowed nowadays only for the article about the book, though I'm not sure about that. Sarah ^(talk) 05:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can use it here, per WP:NFC#UULP, because we discuss the artist. But it would have to be uploaded to WP, not Commons, under a claim of fair use. The article on the book uses a different cover, so we can't use that. Sarah ^(talk) 19:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect NFC rules would not allow that cover in this article which is about Greer and not about the book or the cover. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Let Wikipedia NFC rules be Wikipedia NFC rules!

But what you say, "this article . . is about Greer and not about the book or the cover."
It was the cover art work of the paperback and the title which in combination had you almost impulse buying without you knowing it (1971). Considerably later publications had the art work and the image toned down or decided on other motifs or eliminated any motif. These subsequent printings would never have sold The Female Eunuch in the way that it did sell ( and the anecdote of women throwing the book at their men, I think it can be imagined that that action would not have occurred with a lesser impactive cover design ).
The first printings with that cover design were as much Germaine Greer herself at the beginning of her career as the Abbey Road cover was The Beatles themselves in later career.

Let Wikipedia have their NFC rules . . . or whatever . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Source requests

Hi Laurencebeck, what leads you to believe that Bron became a full member of the Footlights, or that Greer was the first non-British woman member? Bron went up to Cambridge in or around 1959, and was involved with the Footlights, but the first women were admitted as full members in or around 1964, according to the sources I've found so far. Sarah ^(talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

. . . please read 'one of the first' >
" Greer was one of the first women appointed full members of Cambridge University Footlights Dramatic Club. " https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/42261 --Laurencebeck (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, do we have a source for the first part of: "The theatre's artistic director, Kenneth Tynan, could not resist combining the then-soaring fame of the author of The Female Eunuch with the ancient tale of Greek women withholding sex as a political tool ..."? Sarah ^(talk) 16:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sarah

I was in London in 1972. But here is a source for Tynan on this page – http://theconversation.com/why-germaine-greers-life-in-letters-is-one-for-the-archives-19625

" a translation of Lysistrata for the National Theatre commissioned by Kenneth Tynan, which was not produced "

I put this is in my edit *24 June 2015 here*

Kenneth Tynan could not resist combining the then soaring notoriety and fame of the author of The Female Eunuch with the ancient tale of Greek women using the deprivation of their sexual availability as political tool.

The news reached the press and was read with great interest but the project remained incompleted. In 1999, with the remains of the script re-worked by Phil Willmott and produced by him, Greer's 1972 work found belated appreciation.

Anyone who retained a cultural interest in London in 1972 was fascinated by the press release from the National Theatre. But nobody noticed that it did not reach production. As to Germaine Greer and an association with the National Theatre, remember Tynan was a brilliant cultural mould breaker. He had introduced the F word to the public's ears in 1965 —

On 13 November 1965, Tynan participated in a live TV debate, broadcast as part of the BBC's late-night satirical show BBC-3. He was asked whether he would allow a play to be staged in which sexual intercourse was represented on the stage, and replied: “Well, I think so, certainly. I doubt if there are any rational people to whom the word 'fuck' would be particularly diabolical, revolting or totally forbidden. I think that anything which can be printed or said can also be seen." No recording survives of the programme, but Private Eye always maintained that Tynan's stammer made it the first three-syllable four-letter word. At the time, this was believed to be the first time the word "fuck" had been spoken on British television – although it has since been pointed out that at least two others have a prior claim: Brendan Behan on Panorama in 1956 (although his drunken slurring was not understood) or an anonymous man who painted the railings on Stranmillis Embankment alongside the River Lagan in Belfast, who in 1959 told Ulster TV's magazine show, Roundabout, that his job was "fucking boring". Johnson later called Tynan's use of the word "his masterpiece of calculated self-publicity", adding "for a time it made him the most notorious man in the country".

And then in 1969 nudity –

An erotic revue which Tynan co-ordinated and partially wrote, called Oh! Calcutta!, debuted in 1969 and became one of the most successful theatre hits of all time. It included scenes written by various authors, including Samuel Beckett, John Lennon and Edna O'Brien, as well as music and featured frequent nudity.

My words, "(Tynan) could not resist combining the then-soaring fame of the author of The Female Eunuch with the ancient tale of Greek women withholding sex as a political tool," I do not doubt describe the artistic theatre production thought response.

I have given you my explanation, but it does seem the page at the moment is yours, so you can keep it as you feel you would like to.

. . regards--Laurencebeck (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laurence, everything in the article needs a good source. So if you write that Eleanor Bron was the first member of the Footlights, or that Kenneth Tynan "couldn't resist" combining Greer with Lysistrata, you need a source that makes those points – either using those words or words that amount to the same thing – so that your edits are an accurate summary of the source material. Sarah ^(talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Media appearances

Re: this, I reverted because it's of no consequence. We can't list every time she is mentioned in the media or appears on a show. We already have several such examples that should be removed, so it would be good to avoid adding others. Sarah ^(talk) 21:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It couldn't be worse! And it was 29 August, 2015! Greer would never have existed without her notoriety which, in fact, always preceded her before any physical appearance. And I do not know how that trick was done. If you wish to protect an appreciation of the phenomenon by removing details such as this . . a biography of Dylan Thomas might leave out his lethal multiple binges in the White Horse Tavern, NYC. { White Horse Tavern (New York City) }

It's your page . . ., regards --Laurencebeck (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Christine Wallace

Who is Christine Wallace and why is she quoted in this article? N0w8st8s (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)n0w8st8s

Christina Wallace is the author of an unauthorized biography of Greer. She is quoted in the article presumably because her book is an easy and accessible source for Wikipedia editors to use. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Germaine Greer. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/06/death.irwin.greer/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Greer denied honorary Doctoral Degree

It should be pointed out that Germaine Greer was denied an honorary degree from her former Cambridge University college because of her views on transgenders [2]

That's not quite what that article says: "Greer, whose views on transexuality were partly responsible for her former Cambridge University college deciding not to award her an honorary doctorate". To support the claim "denied honorary Doctoral Degree", a more expansive source would be needed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Offensive comments about trans women and rape

Greer has both said that rape is not a violent crime but bad sex, and should be punished with 200 hours community service. And that trans women are not women. Should be cited 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:8943:53D1:E662:E7BF (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sentence removed from lead

This revert (and other previous edits) removed the following sentence from the lead, with an Edit summary of not appropriate for lead:

Greer has been accused of being a transphobe.

The purpose of the lead, is to introduce and summarize the article, and this sentence very briefly summarizes a portion of the article elaborated in the On gender section. As far as summarizing content, it is appropriately worded, on-topic, sourced (not that the lead needs to be), and of justifiable length.

With respect to due or undue coverage, the On gender section is currently about 4% of the article. The lead is currently 351 words, and readding the removed sentence would extend the length of the lead by 2%. It is appropriate to include this sentence, with respect to proportionality. I would like to put this sentence back in the lead, as seems appropriate. @FreeKnowledgeCreator, Slim Virgin, and Bkdb44:. Mathglot (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC) (reping User:SlimVirgin after typo.) Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a discussion. Greer has spent her adult life being provocative. Examples include her involvement in pornography, the form her feminism has taken at various points, and her views on rape and FGM. Pulling out one issue based on a news article is UNDUE, and the way it was written was a BLP violation and inaccurate. Her focus is on sex, not gender. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with SarahSV. References to opinions and accusations about her do not belong in the lead. It’s fair to include them later on in the appropriate section, but to include them in the lead would give them a disproportionate weighting, as Greer has a long and varied (and sometimes chequered) history in the feminist movement. Thanks for starting this discussion. Locochoko (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I can see a BLP-based reason not to include that sentence as worded. However, currently, although the article itself talks about numerous controversial positions she has taken (one of which relates to transgender issues), this is not reflected in the lead in a proportional way. Indeed, the only mention of this in the lead, is Greer's ideas have created controversy ever since her first book, The Female Eunuch (1970), made her a household name. Is that a sufficient summary of issues in the body, given that the article talks about controversy regarding FGM, transgender issues, rape, and perhaps other issues? Especially if she "spent her adult life being provocative". Mathglot (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine as it is. It's the right length, and it gives a solid overview—some basic biographical information; that she's an important second-wave feminism; that her ideas have been controversial; the name of the book that made her a household name; summary of her position ("systematic deconstruction of ideas such as womanhood and femininity, arguing that women are forced to assume submissive roles in society to fulfill male fantasies of what being a woman entails"); a selection of her work; and ending with what she thinks women's liberation consists of and the importance of self-definition. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Person that added the sentence here. I'm fine with taking the part away but I concur that merely calling some of her work "controversial" does not accurately summarize the things she believes. Being "controversial" as a feminist is a fairly broad statement, since even mainstream academic feminist ideas have come under fire by uneducated idiots on the internet. Perhaps a sentence about her controversy stemming from transgender issues in the lead could work? Right now this introduction, in my opinion, paints over some of the substance of her controversies. Then again, it is of minor consequence really. Bkdb44 (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bkdb44 that the lead minimizes the extent and number of the controversies she has been involved in regarding transgender issues, and that they should be described in the lead in a proportional way. Mathglot (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there some indication of the transgender 'issues' proportion to the sum of Greer's 'controversies', however those terms are interpreted? Who or what has weighted this aspect in Greer's entire body of work? cygnis insignis 11:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Professor Germaine Greer

Isn't her title "Professor Germaine Greer"? Vorbee (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry

If I can find any citations for her ancestry, I will add them. It appears that her father is of English descent, and her mother is of Swiss-Italian and English descent. No evidence of any Jewish ancestry. Her paternal grandmother appears to be Emma Wise, not "Rachel Weiss". Note: there are some references to Emma as being a "foster" or "adoptive" grandmother. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal The Beautiful Boy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article about this work is quite short. Copying into Germaine Greer would add little in the way of length, especially given it is already discussed in a short paragraph. Cassandra Prime (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The book article contains a lot of lengthy quotations which needed to be paraphrased. I'm also not sure whether the book cover would be permitted in the article under WP:NFCI. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of the book cover, were one not able to use it in the article, would it be strictly necessary? I notice "Sex and Destiny: The Politics of Human Fertility" does not have an image on Greer's page nor does The Change or, Slip-Shod Sibyls. It is a book of images, so, were the merger to occur, I think it would of course be better to have the image, but I think it's not a very strong reason for the book to have its own article. As for length of the article, it seems to be of similar length to the section on "Whitefella Jump Up" included directly below "The Boy"'s section, as well as the section on "The Whole Woman". Cassandra Prime (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is about the book, concise but relevant to the that topic. It will not get any longer by being merged here, I would be surprised if there was not more to add. ~ cygnis insignis 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, but I am unsure by this comment if you are for or against the proposal. Would you mind clarifying? Sorry in advance for my possible denseness in this matter. Cassandra Prime (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@CassandraPrime: Probably me, I was trying to address two points: I think The Beautiful Boy can be expanded, but it is fine in its current state. I oppose the proposal to merge it here, where it the content is more likely to be abbreviated than expanded. Hope that is clearer. ~ cygnis insignis 06:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• For the record, I also oppose the merger proposal. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.