Talk:Kate Millett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleKate Millett has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 12, 2014Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 7, 2017.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 14, 2019, and September 14, 2022.


Questions

  1. I cannot find the book "Believe me, you don't want a picture of that!, 1991" - Is this a real book?
  2. There are much better pictures of her than the one used in the article. Does anyone know of a better one in the public domain?

--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of personal life info

While confined, she was heavily drugged aka tortured. Reference?

— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.230 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC) @Korny O'Near: and others,[reply]

In User:CaroleHenson/Kate Millett - personal life sub page, I've just finished the initial work on "mental illness" (i.e., need to copy edit, very likely need a better heading) and still have to get to family relationships. It seems like this might be more detail than is needed -- but, it also could be that the detail provides greater insight into her life. Any thoughts about condensing the info, leaving it alone, other?

Your input will help me determine, too, how much family info to put in. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new content looks great! It has useful information on Millett's mental health, family, and activism, and on the interplay between those three, that's well-written and well-cited. There are a few small wording changes I would make - most notably, the third paragraph mentions "Millett's sister" but it's not clear which sister it is. But overall, I'm very much looking forward to all of this being integrated into the main article. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks that's helpful! I'll make the edit you suggested. If there are other wording changes, feel free to made the edits.
I'm surprised that there hasn't been any input about summarizing / reducing the amount of content - and it doesn't sound like that's a concern of yours - so I'll proceed. Much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Korny O'Near: I've completed the work on the work page and integrated the content into the article. I've done some copy-editing and I think I caught most of the issues, but will do another run-through. If you catch any needed edits - or find that I didn't capture the info correctly - your input is appreciated! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Kate Millett/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 05:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

  • Hi Carole, I'll be reviewing this. I usually start with images (force of habit), so here's your image review:
  • File:Kate millet 1.jpg - OTRS permission; I don't have any doubts its correct
  • File:Old East.jpg - Fine copyright wise
  • File:Okuma1.jpg - Fine copyright wise.
  • File:Barnard College, NYC IMG 0961.JPG - I'll admit the uploader gave me pause (history of copyright violations, last I checked he's still blocked for that) but everything appears to check out here.
  • File:Entrance Bryn Mawr.JPG - Fine
  • WP:NFCC
    #8 requires "contextual significance", such that the lack of the image would be severely detrimental to a reader's understanding – something I doubt is met here. However, if we can track down the original newspaper (difficult, but not impossible) and if it was published without a copyright notice (rare, but not unheard of) then under US law the image would be public domain. It's a long shot, but it might work.

Prose comments later. A quick one though: the "Art" section consists mostly of short paragraphs, all under their own headings. This looks choppy, so if its possible to expand the paragraphs or rework so that the headings are removed and the paragraphs are longer, that would help greatly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on! I'll remove the image of Jenny Fay Likens, it's not needed... and I'll work on the "Art" section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is stable; no edit wars over the past few weeks. Only reverts are of vandalism. More when I get back from work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

  • Prose comments:

Intro

  • A seminal influence on
    WP:WEASEL
    is pretty firm.
  • is perhaps best known for her 1970 book Sexual Politics, - don't see this referenced in text
  •  Done in the intro. In the body of the article it's "well known" and the source says "best known" for the book and second-wave feminism efforts--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight semantic difference there, but alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just changed it to known, rather than well known. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Legal abortion, greater professional equality between the sexes and a sexual freedom nearly unimaginable 40 years ago" - I'd attribute this to the author of the source, and avoid using "40 years ago" (that's a 2001 source, so it's 53 years ago now, and counting
  • Might be worth mentioning what she's been doing since the 1980s in the lead (you don't seem to go into much detail with biographical information)
  • Yep, not much. I thought I had something about that, that said that she learned to live on the income from the Women's Art Colony / Tree Farm, but I'll look some more.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • who used corporal punishment. - does the source go into details? It wasn't exactly uncommon for corporal punishment to be used in the US in this period, after all, and a lot of the children of this era ended up using it as well.
  • She said that her father gave her beatings. I'll put that back in. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the subject of her book Mother Millett. - this is much much much later (unless Millett wrote the book when she was still a child) and such shouldn't be here. Was she a teacher/insurance saleswoman concurrently, or consecutively?
  • I don't know whether she was a teacher before or after being a saleswoman, but based upon teacher's salaries, I'd guess she was a teacher first.
  • Removed Mother Millett Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her sisters are Mallory, one of the subjects of Three Lives,[1] and Sally, her older sister. - any brothers? also, is the implication that Mallory is the younger one correct?
  • she attended parochial schools in Saint Paul throughout her childhood. - since your last sentence included Millett's two sisters, we might want to restate her name here.

Education

  • A wealthy aunt paid for her education - this would imply UoM too, and not just Oxford. Might need to refactor.
  • I've only seen it related to Oxford - from what I've read, it sounds like they wanted to get her out of the country. The sentence is worded "A wealthy aunt paid for her education[nb 1] at St Hilda's College, Oxford,"--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps moving the footnote to after Oxford? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles of masters / doctorate theses available?

Career

  • Radicalesbians, and Downtown Radical Women - Either of these worth redlinks?
  • 40 years ago - same issues as above: I'd attribute and remove the "40 years ago", maybe replace it with "early 1960s"
  • Just realized that's in the article three times - removed this occurrence. The last occurrence has already been modified.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • She became a spokesperson for the movement - which movement? Feminist? (Also, since this is a new paragraph, the first "she" should be Millett.
  • which she covered in her 1974 book, Flying. - Perhaps some discussion of the thoughts she expressed in Flying?
  • Betty Friedan's focus, by comparison, was to improve leadership opportunities socially and politically and economic independence for women. - the comparison with Friedan appears to come out of nowhere for individuals unfamiliar with second-wave feminism. Perhaps a bit of segue? Also, how did Millett effect her changes?
  • in her sexual, physical and emotional abuse. - her being Millett, the abstract "powerless girl", Likens, or Baniszewski?
  • I've changed powerless-->defenseless and the earlier haunted--->preoccupied so that the quotation marks aren't needed. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quite apart from any feminist
    WP:ATTRIBUTION
    and related policies/guidelines, we should attribute this to the author in-text
  • Going to Iran - any more detail?
  • I had looked for more details earlier and hadn't found anything... and right away tonight I found this great People article and expanded that paragraph significantly. I was so curious about what happened so that was an interesting find. Thanks!  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* added 80,000 / seven printings for the first year.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The judge ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, but Millett reluctantly paid portions of the earnings to the women. - why "but"?
  • I've added a bit more to the statement: "The judge ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, but Millett reluctantly paid only a portion of the earnings to the women." The point is that she only paid a portion - and "but" seems to fit this situation better than "and". Does it sound better / make more sense now?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, the emphasis on "portion" makes it clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three Lives - worth redlinking? I mean, a NYT review suggests that there may be others out there, and multiple reviews is usually enough for notability. Not being mainstream (entirely or at all) doesn't affect notability; Frank's Cock is an FA yet very non-commercial and avant-garde.
  • "dazzling exhibitionism". - again, attribution would be nice here.
  • Yep, I'm catching the trend! It was from a
    New York Times Book Review. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • In 1980, Millett was one of the ten invited artists whose work was exhibited in the
    Woman's Building
    in Los Angeles. - Have you had a look for contemporary newspaper reviews on Google News Archive? Perhaps they'd have discussion of her artwork.
  • a 'bizarre, dark, awful place' in the habit of doping its residents and pinning them in their beds - perhaps mention that it was a nursing home / retirement home / whatever the term is she uses.
  • the article says "home" (aka nursing home) - attributed Kate's part to her - rephrased the remainder from the author. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Millett and others - other tenants, perhaps?
  • Any other discussion of The Women's Art Colony? Mission statement, etc.? I mean, she's maintained it for over 40 years, yet it's given 2 sentences in the article.

Awards and honors

  • Why was Millett selected for the Courage Awards?
  • In March 2013, the U.S. National Women's Hall of Fame announced that Millett was to be among the institution's 2013 inductees. - Quote the citation, perhaps? The "Awards" section feels rather short.

Controversy

  • Section #Controversy should, per
    WP:CSECTION
    , not be its own section. I'd move the Mailer information to #Sexual Politics, and the other one in a section discussing her scholarship (something missing from the article so far).
  • Norman Mailer part moved under Sexual Politics, where it's better suited!  Done
  • Moved scholarship discussion into a new section  Done
  • To do: expand scholarship.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • The dedicated section on Mother Millet might work better as a subsection in #Career (trimmed, perhaps, with an article on the book).
  • Yep, I definitely understand your point and I wrestled with that... its so telling of the family dynamics -- and the interesting twist of Millett "rescuing" her mother from the nursing home after her mother had her committed to a psychiatric ward, that I think it fits here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These qualities helped to make her "one of the most influential radical feminists of the 1970s". They could also make for difficult interpersonal relationships. = Attribution again -  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • remarkable - This is POV, so attribution would be better
  • This is now attributed to Featherstone - inserted her phrase "brutal honesty" Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rousseau's Confessions - Should this be Rousseau's Confessions or Rousseau's Confessions?
  • The Loony Bin Trip - You haven't mentioned this book yet; why is it not in the career section?
  • Same point as Mother Millett -hmmm, let me think about this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • came to her rescue - is there perhaps a less loaded term we can use?
  • Yep, rephrased it to: "and poor nursing home care. In it, Millett removes her mother from the home and returns her to an apartment, where caregivers managed her health and comfort."--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • met fellow sculptor Fumio Yoshimura - you haven't described Millett as a sculptor yet, just that she studied the art.
  • Millet was described as a sculptor in the "Early career" section: "In New York City she worked as a kindergarten teacher and learned to sculpt and paint from 1959 to 1961. She then moved to Japan and studied sculpture. Millett met fellow sculptor Fumio Yoshimura." Are you saying that some of this needs to be repeated here?--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fumio Yoshimura - I know we can't redlink the name, per
    WP:REDLINK
    , but do you think there could be an article about him?
  • I don't know. I tried looking for more information about him and it's pretty lean. He seems to have been admired as a teacher and a sculptor of interesting wood pieces, but he doesn't appear to be particularly notable... unless his notability comes from being married to Millett. It has surpised me how little I was able to find out about him - and the Millett-Yoshimura relationship.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was said that he "loves her, leads his own creative life, and accepts her woman lovers - Attribution again. "it was said" is
    weaselly
    .
  • Yoshimura sculpted in wood, first in unfinished linden wood, having taught himself how to work with the medium while in New York. Known for his "painstaking technique", he made life-like depictions of plants, machines, and other objects, like bicycles and kites. Yoshimura was an adjunct professor at Dartmouth College for 11 years. - Not sure this is related closely enough to Millett to go into this much detail
  • Ok. There is so little about him in the article that it's nice to have a little background.I moved that into a note. Does that work? --CaroleHenson (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be best to name all of her sisters in the front.
  • Yoshimura threatened divorce. - You had their divorce "amicable". A threat doesn't sound very amicable (might need to be reworded)
  • He threatened divorce in the early 1970s when they lived in California and was going through one of her most unstable periods. They divorced a decade later. But, I read "amicable" so many times about their divorce I thought I'd put it in the article. I went ahead and removed it, though. That's fine.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a few times. - do we know how many?
  • Mallory Millett - why has the hyphenated name been omitted here? Had she become divorced/widowed by this point, or ...?
  • Ah, gotcha. At that time, she was Mallory Millett. She became Mallory Millet-Jones later. Let me come back to this with the other comment about naming the sisters.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • an Irish parliament member and a therapist-psychiatrist from Dublin, - are either named?
  • She did not oppose "supportive, inquiring and sensitive psychotherapy." - Ref?

Comprehensiveness

Note about comprehensiveness:

  • Since many of Millett's works are academic or quasi-academic in nature, academic reviews would be very useful. Going to Iran, for instance, was reviewed in Feminist Review and Women and Religion.
    WP:RX is usually able to help with getting JSTOR sources. Gotta go back to work now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I don't know why, but I'm unable to pull up the full Feminist Review article, but I was able to pull up and used the Signs / Women and Religion article to expand the scholarship section a bit re: Going to Iran.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this article does a good job presenting her personal life (and the mental health aspect wouldn't look out of place in an FA, in terms of balance), I'm not sure it deals with Millett's academic activities adequately. Right now, her view of feminism appears to be limited to "Millett articulated a theory of patriarchy and conceptualized the gender and sexual oppression of women in terms that demanded a sex role revolution with radical changes of personal and family lifestyles", which I feel (though I'm not familiar with her writings) may be a bit too simplified. Millett's academic life feels very bare bones, and considering her activities and writings on feminism are why she drew mainstream attention, and that Sexual Politics has entire journal articles about its influence on 2nd wave feminism, the academic aspect probably needs to be strengthened a bit to reach criterion 3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYT Three Lives was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Thanks for the great work on this. I'll get to work on it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I break this into chunks by section? My brain is on overload and it would help to work a chunk at a time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, I went ahead and broke this out into sections, which makes it much easier for me to track. I get overwhelmed by blocks of info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion items

From Cristo's comments above, I'm moving the remaining items, which are essentially items for expansion here:

  • Might be worth mentioning what she's been doing since the 1980s in the lead (you don't seem to go into much detail with biographical information)
  • which she covered in her 1974 book, Flying. - Perhaps some discussion of the thoughts she expressed in Flying?
  • There is a bit more about Flying in the article now - in the scholarship section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Betty Friedan's focus, by comparison, was to improve leadership opportunities socially and politically and economic independence for women. - the comparison with Friedan appears to come out of nowhere for individuals unfamiliar with second-wave feminism. Perhaps a bit of segue? Also, how did Millett effect her changes?
  • Would be nice to have a review of Sita. This helps.
  • In 1980, Millett was one of the ten invited artists whose work was exhibited in the
    Woman's Building
    in Los Angeles. - Have you had a look for contemporary newspaper reviews on Google News Archive? Perhaps they'd have discussion of her artwork.
  • Any other discussion of The Women's Art Colony? Mission statement, etc.? I mean, she's maintained it for over 40 years, yet it's given 2 sentences in the article.
  • Why was Millett selected for the Courage Awards?
  • There's not a clear explanation of why. I think it can be inferred that it's because of her work on Sexual Politics and her accomplishments as a human rights activist, feminist, and artist - from several articles that mention the award and provide some biographical info about Millett... but there's no clear connection between the award and these points. I added a description from Yoko Ono of what she meant to accomplish with the award, which should help readers assess why she might have received the award.--18:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In March 2013, the U.S. National Women's Hall of Fame announced that Millett was to be among the institution's 2013 inductees. - Quote the citation, perhaps?
  • Added more info about this award - attributed to a co-president.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Awards" section feels rather short.
  • a section discussing her scholarship (something missing from the article so far).

I also have to address Comprehensiveness and some to-do items in the Personal Life section (the two books, two items on her sisters' names).--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like this article was going to be a "beast" to get through GA review, but I didn't think I had so many items to work through. Thanks for the detailed review... I'll keep working on these remaining items... but have some personal life stuff that has been keeping me busy so it may be slow-going over the next couple of days.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, RL has been keeping me rather busy as well, and I consider "7 days" a suggestion more than anything. Did you notice my image suggestions at the top? Two of Millett's book covers are simple enough to be PD in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't know about {{PD-simple}} - sure, I'll pull down the images, which I'm assuming (and will research) require an explanation similar to "Fair use". Thanks for that!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. If they're free, they're free. The template usually explains enough (but note it's just the versions I linked to... the subsequent editions appear to have more creative (and thus unfree) covers). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the addition of the #Exhibitions section. We should ensure that they are all referenced, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, absolutely. It seemed easier to start from a list from Kate Millett's timeline to help find them. Anything that I cannot find I'll comment out or remove.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, looks like the only things left to do before I do a source review are expand the "Scholarship" section a bit (academic reviews of her books should help indicate the main points) and reference the exhibitions section. Prose is at the GA level or higher. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. I've added references to the exhibitions section... so I'll work on scholarship next.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello @Crisco 1492:, How does the scholarship section seem to be going (i.e., on the right track, enough content)? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the GA level it looks to be okay. I'll be doing a source review, but since I just got back from the seminar it may be a couple hours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference comments

  • Ref for the films and "Out of the Loop". On The Issues Magazine. Summer 1998.?
  • I've got the basic info, I don't know the page number.
  • If I've provided all the information for the films - using the cite AV media template, I didn't realize references were needed. What would a reference have in it that isn't in the listing?
  • If you've got access to the film, that's fine. Would be nice if Millett had a list of her works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time magazine is a work and not a publisher
  • Standardize whether or not you include publishers with newspaper references
  • Well, I have a standard practice, if the publisher is provided, I provided it. If it isn't, I don't. Are you saying it's best to remove the publishers where they are provided?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think that's how you should do it, sure. You can also find the publishers using WorldCat (which is what I do for books' publishers' locations) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize how your "Accessed via Highbeam" blurbs are formatted. I'd use the =via parameter
  • I do have a standard approach: "(accessed via HighBeam Research, an online subscription service)" - everyone of the citations says that. I don't know of a parameter
  • You sometimes have it after the publisher (normal) and sometimes after the work (in italics). It doesn't look quite right. There's a "via=" parameter with the cite family of templates that you can use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alice Henry (June 1977). "Sita (Review)". off our backs (accessed via JSTOR): 14. - page 14, volume 14, or...? Might need to standardize how you format page numbers
  • I didn't format the page numbers, I used a {{cite}} template. This was a journal, so I used the cite journal. I guess if I switched to the "citation" template - that would format consistently. Is that what you're suggesting?
  • Standardize whether or not you use locations of publishers in your book references
  • I have a standard practice, if the location is provided, I provided it. If it isn't, I don't. Are you saying it's best to remove the locations where they are provided?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think that's how you should do it, sure. You can also find the publishers using WorldCat (which is what I do for books' publishers' locations) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, how many of these are GA criteria?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd, I could have sworn that 2A included reference formatting, but rereading
    WP:GA?, the criteria as phrased would accept bare urls, and in fact specifically states that standardized formatting is not necessary... interesting. The GA candidacy is in the bag, and I'll be passing it now. If you plan to continue to FAC (it would be nice to have Millett on the main page some time) I recommend standardizing the formatting, getting a few more academic reviews of her work, and giving a more nuanced discussion of her theoretical approach, if possible, but I think the comprehensiveness is GA class already. Congratulations, and my apologies for being so late in returning to the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The via= and subscription= parameters are helpful! I made the changes for all the HighBeam and JSTOR sources. Oh my, going for Featured Article sounds like a good plan, but I might need a break. I get your points about theoretical approach and more academic reviews, but what do you mean about standardized formatting - do you mean citation formatting?

RE: Mental Illness section:

June 8, 2019 12:30 pm

Hello - It seems to me that the Mental Illness section of the KM bio ought to be preceded by a WP editor's recommendation of the following type:

"This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"

Reason: I suggest this insofar as the Mental Illness entry moves between description and judgmentalism - the latter appearing to reflect Kate Millet's subjective views and then echoed or relayed without objectifying distancing by the the section's author.

Such opinions can be framed as attributed to KM or as attributed to authorities or friends and thus included in a way that the entry does not "take sides" in the controversy. Otherwise it seems inappropriate in an enclyclopedia to adopt the frame of K Millet herself without neutrality. Were the author to take a more distanced approach, K Millet's presented symptoms of mania & depression, history of hospitalizations, inappropriate behavior and both involuntary & voluntary resort to psychotropic medications for bipolar disorder and her views on psychiatry could be properly attributed & acknowledged and her arguments put into perspective in a neutral fashion, rather than appear to adopt her view point as definitive.

Examples which appear unobjective include:

"Millett became depressed, particularly so about having been confined without due process." (inferential)

"Her behavior was that of psychiatric drug withdrawal, including "mile-a-minute" speech, which turned her peaceful art colony to "a quarrelsome dystopia." - This is inferential as pressured speech and difficult behavior (such as quarrelsomeness) are alternatively explicable as a relapse, which her friends recognized as her needing resumption of lithium and rehospitalization.

"She was involuntarily committed in Ireland after airport security "determined from someone in New York" that she had a "mental illness" and had stopped taking lithium.[18] Perhaps she was disruptive at the airport and authorities were advised she had pre-existing mental illness previously treated. Otherwise this sentence reads as if this was an unjustified use of authority assisted by a (valid) informal report of her hisory of mental illness. Millet's subsequent decompensation in NYC requiring further hospitalization points to the wisdom of her friends and authorities that she needed if not required evaluation and possible treatment whilst in Dublin's airport.

"Millett's involvement with psychiatry caused her to attempt suicide several times due to both damaging physical and emotional effects but also because of the slanderous nature of psychiatric labeling that affected her reputation and threatened her very existence in the world." Again, while indeed stigmatization and actual or subjectively interpreted mistreatment by psychiatric professionals or institutions indeed may and do compound problems due to one's illness itself, its seems inappropriate in an encyclopedia entry to adopt the view of the patient whole without caveat, distance or balance. Her suicide attempts are also consistent with bi polar depressive episodes, personality disorder, and to use adjectives as "slanderous" or that psychiatric interventions which may also have saved her life are characterized as "threatening her existence". This undermines trust in the entry author's contribution. Mcha6677 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

A fairly minor point but do we really need to link genteel in the quote "a life of genteel poverty"?

WP:MOSQUOTE says do not link inside quotes and I would have thought genteel was a fairly common English word, although perhaps that is my British background skewing impressions. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not sure how much the word is used among the younger generation, but if you'd like to remove it, that's cool with me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you might want to consider using {{efn}} with {{notelist}} in future; that seems to have superseded the #tag:ref construct for footnotes. I see that you've picked up on what appear to be fairly recent changes to the cite parameters: the addition of the subscription= field is particularly useful for quality articles, where previously I found myself having to use {{subscription required}}. Anything that reduces the amount of misplaced brackets I have to fix is progress! - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great points, @Sitush:. Thanks, I'll check out the notes options. I am sooo with you about the misplaced brackets issue!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An odd bit

I read:

Millett visited Ireland in the fall of 1980 as an activist. Upon her return the United States, there was a delay at the airport and she decided to extend her stay. Millett was involuntarily committed in Ireland after airport security determined from someone in New York that she stopped taking lithium.

This makes little sense to me. It's sourced to something to which I don't have access, and I don't want to subject it to my guesswork, which would go something like: upon her intended return to the US, there was a delay to the departure and she decided not to wait and instead to extend her stay. She was involuntarily committed because, because, er, what? (Is it normal to be committed for failure to take a prescribed drug?)

Somebody with access to Highbeam, please check. -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the info from the article:
" That fall she went to Ireland, to the land of her father's people. She spoke in the Irish parliament; she met political radicals supporting the IRA and couldn't go along with them, because of her lifelong pacifism. And on her way home, she got delayed at the airport, then decided to stay on for a bit.
The airport security officials called New York, somehow found out that she'd stopped taking lithium and threw her into an Irish mental hospital where she was drugged and kept incommunicado for days."
I'll work on it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to:
Millett visited Ireland in the fall of 1980 as an activist. Upon her intended return to the United States, there was a delay at the airport and she extended her stay in Ireland. Millett was involuntarily committed in Ireland after airport security determined from someone in New York that she had a mental illness and had stopped taking lithium.[16]--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary:,
Regarding the question: "Is it normal to be committed for failure to take a prescribed drug?" - Boy, I circled on that myself quite a bit. My guess has been that her behavior was very erratic when she first tried to leave Ireland... which caused the security officials to call someone in New York. It still seems strange to me that she would have been committed, but there must have been an initial trigger of some sort.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out the need to reword this a bit. See what you think based upon the content from the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's much better; thank you. (I'd cut "from someone in New York" as unnecessarily mystifying, but it's a matter of taste.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, great! I think I'll leave the "from someone in New York" - it sounds even more mysterious to me without it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

linking from within quotations

Biographer Roberta M. Hooks wrote, "Quite apart from any feminist polemics, The Basement can stand alone as an intensely felt and movingly written study of the problems of cruelty and submission."

I think this linking raises several points. First, when she wrote that, did she link "polemic" to the Wikipedia article so titled? I doubt this. Secondly, if she didn't link it, are we distorting what she wrote by linking it? I don't always agree with MoS, but (happily cherry-picking away) I do agree when it says: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article."

And thirdly, the article "Polemic" doesn't strike me as helpful here. "Polemic" isn't a particularly elusive word; readers of an article on [insert gruesome example of bubble-gum "popular culture" here] might need it explained, but those of an article on Millett probably don't, and would probably be better served by a dictionary if they did. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness! If there's a guideline not to link within quotes, that's good enough for me. I removed the link.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going for featured article?

Hi @Hoary:,

Thanks so much for your great edits! Are you making the edits to prep for a Feature article nomination?

If so, there were some recommendations from the GA review and I'd be happy to chip in on those items.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er. . . . I had a look in the cited source, and could only see "Lesbian" (with an "n"). My change has been reverted to a combination of "Lesbia" (which I didn't notice in the source, though I could have been inattentive) and "Lesiba" (surely wrong), and an unneeded semicolon has crept back in.
No, sorry, I don't have an FA in mind. FA candidature normally brings up content questions, and I don't have any sources to hand.
I'm not sure why I arrived here. I know next to nothing about KM and have no memory of ever reading anything by her. One of my minor pastimes is to land on what looks like a pretty good article on a subject of which I know nothing, and see if I can improve it. (I like to think that I'm sufficiently aware of the [considerable] dangers of editing from a state of ignorance, but of course I may get it wrong.)
If you did want to move toward FA, then I can immediately think of two discrete areas to work on. KM's late relationship with her mother is described first in the context of the book that's about it, and secondly in the context of personal life. There's considerable overlap. I'm not at all sure of what the best solution would be, and that's one reason why I haven't touched this.
Secondly, her list of books could be a lot better. Sample: "Sexual Politics. University of Illinois Press. 2000 [1969].
ISBN 978-0-252-06889-8
." I think that the publication details of the first edition(s) should be provided, though those of subsequent editions could be added too. (First editions [plural], if, say, the book was simultaneously put out by a US and a British publisher.)
I'd invite some knowledgable editor around for a tinker, then think about FAC. -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Lesbia Erotica vs. Lesbian Erotica - I read Lesbia Erotica so consistently in review articles, like this so often that I hadn't questioned it. I wonder if that was the title for the European galleries because in a google search there are a lot more "Lesbian Erotica" hits. And, yep, I see the cited source sas "Lesbian". So, Lesbian looks like the best fit.
Mother Millett is a tricky thing. I moved it into the "career" sections based upon feedback from the GA review. I don't know how to avoid overlap in the personal section, unless it's moved back to the personal life section, because the book really sums up the family dynamics. I'll think about this a bit...
It seems like there's more tinkering (first edition info for books - adding missing publishers / locations to citations) + some expansion of her career section. I will likely return to this later. I was just looking to help pitch in if you were looking to take it to FAC.
Thanks so much for the polishing!--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not the man for the job. But the article will be on my watchlist for a little time longer; and time permitting, I'll look in now and again to see if something can be tinkered with beneficially.
As for no-"n" "Lesbia", if this often appears in other sources, I wonder if the source cited here might have added a spurious "n". -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statements and reverted edits

I see that there have been some edits that I fear could jeopardize the article's

Good article
status, one of which is the addition of unsourced material. The following was added to the article without a source:

  • Ms. Millett was nominated by her long time friend, trusted colleague and comrade in the mental patients' rights movement, Myra Kovary.
  • In June 2012, Ms. Millett was honored by the Veteran Feminists of America at an event held at the famed Judson Church in New York City, where Millett also bestowed the coveted Kate Millett Award on a leader of the women's movement in the United States, Jacqueline Ceballos.

Does anyone know of a source for this statement?

Also, other changes I'm seeing are: 1) introduction of external links within the body of the article, which I have removed (See. WP:External links) and embedding new information in a properly cited sentence. If information is added to the article that's not covered by the existing source, then an additional source is needed for the information. I am positive these are all good-faith edits, and thought it might help if I explained why the edits were reverted.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, adding oclc's to list of books are nice when there's no ISBNs - but the correct oclcs for the book edition (year, location, publisher) should be used. A few have now been corrected.
Although some sources don't capitalize the titles of books, they should be properly capitalized for GA articles, so some of the titles have been corrected/reverted to the earlier version.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Millett

Hello Melvin toast,

I reverted the information about Mallory Millet here because: 1) This article is about Kate, 2) there is some information about Mallory in the article, 3) the information was added to a section that does not make sense (in the midst of the information about her career), and 4) I don't see the point of the info, other than to promote the sister.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying comment from Melvin toast at my talk page:
My changes to Kate Millett's Wikipedia page were completely legitimate and your assertions to the contrary reveal a desire to have the page remain as a polemic or worse, an encomium. My inclusion of Mallory Millett's article contributes to a thoughtful, disciplined, and diverse biographical entry. Adding a brief section on what Kate Millett's own sister thought of her writings provides background information a reader deserves to hear.Melvin toast (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Melvin toast I added a note with most of the content. That seems the most appropriate edit for this information.
Kate Millett's sister, Mallory Millett, is Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and sits on the Board of Regents for the Center for Security Policy. She has also written and spoken extensively and often extremely critically of her sister's work, most recently in an article for FrontPage Magazine.[1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/240037/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives-mallory-millett
If anyone disagrees with this approach, besides Melvin toast, your input would be appreciated!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kate Millett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kate Millett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some help

Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

There has been a string of edits made, reverted/removed, and added again to the article, so I thought I'd summarize what appears to be happening:

  • Linking Paris - does not need to be linked per
    WP:OVERLINKING
  • Adding a citation for Millet's partner in the infobox - not needed since it's cited in the body of the article
  • Different formats for "spouses" in the infobox - I added the partner parameter for Sophie Keir

Make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Sophie should have been listed as a spouse... and my edit was corrected. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Please, can you explain your views here? I think we should keep the infobox standard. I have not seen any linking to a marriage section, etc. @CaroleHenson: any thoughts? 7szz (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@7szz: There is nothing substandard about using {{Infobox writer}}. Millett is best known for her writings and it's entirely appropriate to use that template. As for linking to that section, it's wise to do so in order to contextualise the second marriage since the year of that marriage is unknown. Using just her wife's name below without anything to provide context is unhelpful to the reader and could even imply to some that she was married twice simultaneously. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Piece of Land: Kate Millett Farm

This book appears to be self-published so we should not be listing it. It's not on Amazon, Google Books, or in Worldcat. I found one sales site that purported to have an ISBN for it, but searching for that ISBN turns up a different book. Skyerise (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book does have an ISBN, it's 9789163748196 which I found here. It appears to be an account by some visitors of the Women's Art Colony Farm which Millett founded so I would say it's fine to be placed in further reading per Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Self-published_doesn't_mean_a_source_is_automatically_invalid. Yes it's self-published but it's not being used for any claims. Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fake ISBN. If it were a real one it could be used to look up the book on Amazon, Google, and Worldcat, but that ISBN doesn't find the book on any of this sites. We are not supposed to send people to self-published content because it has not been vetted by a publisher. And we are also not supposed to promote self-published books by listing them. That entry probably got placed by the PR team for the book. I don't think we should list it. Skyerise (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it does find it on Worldcat, though not the others. I'll re-add it with proper author attribution. Skyerise (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good solution to add it like that, nice one! Mujinga (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on "Other publications" section

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kate_Millett&oldid=1212616694"