Talk:Kate Millett/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Birthplace[edit]

Where was Kate Millet born? Does anyone know?

yup, St. Paul, Minn. I'll add that now. Andreach 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert banned user[edit]

Reverting the edits of banned user. Reverted edits by 71.141.2.150 (talk) to last version by FloNight. --FloNight talk 04:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate edit summary[edit]

Due to a c&p muckup I put a bad edit summary in. The one that mentions lawyers actually should say I removed a magazine cover per WP:FU. My bad. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 23:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedian style[edit]

Mother Millett (2002) describes how Kate Millett rescues her mother from being robbed of her personality and human dignity at a totalitarian caring institution; this time she is able to make relationship with people acting in solidarity with her and her mother (effectively). The only question still to be answered: why is it that Mother Millett did not protect her daughter when she had been in a similar situation?

Can somebody change this text into an "encyclopedian" one, please? Austerlitz 88.72.4.131 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, an update has been made re: Mother Millet.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing Kate Millett nowadays[edit]

  • Kate Millett Article and Bibliography
  • [1] Mother Millett, Kate Millett has been on a comeback since a 1999 article appeared in Salon Magazine expressing shock that Millett's feminist classic Sexual Politics had dropped out of print.

Kate Millett

Reviewed by Martha Bridegam Thursday, July 5 2001, 9:25 PM

Austerlitz -- 88.72.15.170 09:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking for the controversy section we might discuss Norman Mailer's The Prisoner of Sex, which was in large part a criticism of Millett's reading of various authors in Sexual Politics. Perhaps something for a 'criticism' section as opposed to controversy section.

Good point, I'll look info and a source for that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time cover[edit]

Should mention she was on the cover of the August 31, 1970 issue of Time magazine:[2] [3] ... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos:  Done Thanks for the link to the cover. It's cool that the art work was by Alice Neel!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also links[edit]

I removed most of the links in separate edits in which (as requested) I specifically justify each removal, usually in reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Layout#See_also_section — SethTisue (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian or bisexual?[edit]

The main text of the article says she's a lesbian, and she's also on a list of bisexual writers. Which is it?

She is bisexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.234.202 (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

In the UK, honours degrees are undergraduate; postgraduate degrees do not have an honours system. Either she got first-class honors undergraduate degree, or she got a postgraduate degree. This needs to be corrected - does anyone know which it is?

She probably did a second BA at Oxford (in 2 years); also the University awards degrees not the college.

I agree, the claim that she was awarded a first class honours postgraduate degree is nonsense and almost certainly down to the (American) ref author not understanding the British university system. I don't know, but it's most likely that KM did an MPhil in something or other, which can be either a research or taught postgraduate qualification. Taught MPhils normally take two years, and the exam results are not graded. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_honours#First_Class_Honours. --Ef80 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sources tag[edit]

There was an attempt to remove the Template:BLP sources tag, but there are still quite a number of unsourced sentences.

There are a couple of options:

  1. Find sources for the uncited statements, perhaps from theses sources, except those written by Millet herself.
  2. Remove the sentences where there are no sources. Since the tag was placed in 2011 and no sources have been found, that might be the way to go - unless of course, someone would like to find sources.

If help is needed, please let me know, I'd be happy to help.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article clean-up[edit]

Since the BLP sources tag has been removed again without resolve the issues -- and there are quite a number of them, I'm going to start a clean-up of the article, including:

  • Finding reliable sources, which basically means secondary sources (magazines, newspapers, books) with an objective point of view and editorial staff -  Done there are so many iffy web sources, so I mainly used books and newspaper articles
  • Remove the non-allowed sources: such as, Encyclopædia Britannica (tertiary source / sometimes allowed based upon author, better to use a good secondary source over a tertiary source), blog / neutral point of view issue, and any others -  Done
  • Remove content that cannot be found to have reliable sources -  Done
  • Complete "Works" information -  Done update the information that I could find, there may be additional works that should be in the lists
  • Add content from suggestions on the talk page (i.e., try and find the Time magazine article) and round out the article per guidelines for biographies of living people -  Done just one last look re: Norman Mailer

That's my starting pointing before diving in... there may be more to do.

If there are any other suggestions, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article flow is a little awkward right now, but I think that's because her personal life intertwines with her career. So, my thought is to have a section for "Adulthood" rather than "Career" and have subsections based upon phases of her life. I hope that makes sense - any other suggestions?--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Status updates made to the list above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Millett essay info[edit]

I have moved the Mallory Millett information that was added back to the article here for discussion:

In a 2014 essay, Millett's younger sister (and collaborator on Three Lives) Mallory Millett wrote that Kate Millett had "had serious mental health issues" throughout her entire life, and called her "a brutal sadist" and "a violent bully" with a "genius for chaos". She also blamed her sister in part for the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1970s in the United States, which she wrote "culminated in the depositing on the streets of NYC thousands of confused, terrified and seriously disturbed persons left to fend for themselves".<ref>{{cite web |title=No Gun Ever Killed Anyone |url=http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/millett-no-gun-ever-killed-anyone |first=Mallory |last=Millett |work=[[TruthRevolt]] |date=June 2, 2014}}</ref>

There are several issues here - most of which are due to a question regarding reliability of the source and that it's a first person account. It's also not really a controversy in terms of her work - but really condemnation of Kate Millett as a person.

Broken down by points:

  1. In a 2014 essay, Millett's younger sister (and collaborator on Three Lives)
  2. Mallory Millett wrote that Kate Millett had "had serious mental health issues" throughout her entire life, and called her "a brutal sadist" and "a violent bully" with a "genius for chaos".
  3. She also blamed her sister in part for the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1970s in the United States, which she wrote "culminated in the depositing on the streets of NYC thousands of confused, terrified and seriously disturbed persons left to fend for themselves".

There are some points here, though, that ARE now in the article from reliable secondary sources:

  1. There are two places in the article that mention Mallory being in Three Lives
  2. Please see the Mental Illness section about information that has been added there. Information about the family views of her were put into notes. I tried to keep from becoming sensationalistic about the family's view of her mental illness + avoided getting into gory details about the ways in which she was involuntarily committed. In other words, trying to be compliant with guidelines regarding encyclopedic tone, neutral point of view and "What Wikipedia Is Not". Please see the guidelines that I added in the previous section.
    1. In terms of what was added, I let the reliable sources provide the information - as it should - but added content with an encyclopedic tone and by selecting information that is encyclopedic content. The relevancy of her mental illness for this article is largely based upon providing context for The Loony Bin Trip
    2. Also, see note #3 that gives some insight into her behavior.
  3. I've not seen a secondary source related to her having a role in "depositing on the streets of NYC thousands of confused, terrified and seriously disturbed persons left to fend for themselves". Is there a newspaper or book that says something like this?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think her sister's published views on her mental illness are very relevant, and not, in this case, especially sensationalistic. Relegating uncomfortable or provocative details to footnotes is not a convention I'm familiar with for Wikipedia - is there a guideline that calls for that sort of thing? It seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia - burying the lede, so to speak. I think you're on stronger ground, though, in saying that Mallory's views on Kate's role in deinstitutionalization should not be included. My view is that her sister's views are notable no matter what they are: that if Mallory had said that, for instance, Kate was responsible for the death of the dinosaurs, it would still be worth including just because her sister said it. But maybe that's not true. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen an article that comments on the subject's character or behavior in the manner of the Mallory comments (i.e., bullying, right-fighting kind of language) - and it seems especially inappropriate in light of this family's dynamics and dysfunction. Do you have an example of a similar approach in a Wikipedia article that follows guidelines?
  • There was some content related to Mallory's points that were relevant to the encyclopedia and were added. In fact her points are pretty much covered - in a more neutral tone and with good sourcing except for the deinstitutionalization statement. I'm confused as to why it needs to come from Mallory rather than a good secondary source.
  • If there is a reliable secondary source for Mallory's viewpoints (i.e., editorial review for appropriateness and accuracy of content) that could be used as a quote and content is to be included - then for NPOV additional content should be added to balance the information, such as comments about her positive demeanor, how her family treated her with involuntary commitments, her winning a sanity trial, etc. to balance the comments. By that's just looking at it from a NPOV perspective.
  • Consideration should also be given to the description of her behavior in relationship to her mental illness. Illness being the operative word. Perhaps to the extreme for illustrative purposes... would we blame a cancer patient for being lazy? a person with dementia for being confused?
  • Regarding explanatory notes, it's not a good summary - but there's information at Explanatory notes. What I have put into explanatory notes has come from grooming by senior editors over time. I am happy to dwell into this more, though, if the link doesn't help sufficiently. Generally, my instruction has been that what goes in notes are comments that would not otherwise be included in the article, but provide a bit of explanation that might be helpful to the reader - which is hit on in the link I've provided. I am happy, though, to look back through them to see if it's more appropriate to add in the body of the article or delete entirely... with your input, of course.
  • My point isn't that the institutionalization information should not be in the article - it was that I couldn't find a reliable secondary source (newspaper, book) that had that information. Based upon the intentions of the anti-psychiatry movement, I could see a consequence of their actions being deinstitutionalized of people that are unable to properly care for themselves. That absolutely would be relevant if there is a good secondary source(s) said that Millett had direct involvement in that happening.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added "that could be used as a quote".--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines[edit]

Based on the types of edits made in the re-write, I thought the following guidelines might be helpful for reference:

Further reading

--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper exploration[edit]

You know, the more I think about it - maybe it is appropriate to have a section that deals with her family's dynamics -- of course, secondary sources, NPOV, etc. followed. I checked around for articles and came up with two to look at:

  • One I wrote about Vincent van Gogh's mental problems Hospital in Arles (Van Gogh series) - see sections 1.3 and 1.4.
  • A good example that combines mental illness with relationship problems is the Anne Heche article sections on relationships, family and psychiatric problems - which has good examples (22-54 I think is the range) of the types of sources I'm talking about.

What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

--- There's more on HighBeam, but it's a start...--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure where to respond, so I'll respond here. I also wasn't sure which of your many arguments to respond to, so, let me just say: yes, an expanded section on her mental health and relationship with her family sounds like a good idea. The issue of whether she did or did not have mental illness affects an understanding of her life in a way that I think it does for few other people, given that she (mostly) disputed the diagnosis, and that she notably served as an anti-psychiatry crusader, using her own experiences as a prime example. And her relationship with her family is intimately tied in with that. So if you want to take a stab at it, that sounds good. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I understand your point about her denial of the diagnosis (or issue with labeling what would be considered by the general population and clinicians to be a mental illness)
  • Expansion on the note about the family's view and interactions, including moving the note about their viewpoints into the body of the article would be a step in the process.
  • It's pretty obvious by the treatment that she received and information from reliable sources that she is bipolar - and that can be explained further.
I've got a GA review that I'm doing in the cue for this afternoon, but I can start this later today or tomorrow. If you have points that you think should be covered beyond what we've discussed so far that I could specifically research, that would be helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the User:CaroleHenson/Kate Millett - personal life sub page to work on this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kate_Millett/Archive_1&oldid=1136265242"