Jump to content

Talk:Catharine A. MacKinnon

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

[edit]

I think there should be more mention of the anti-pornography ordinance, although it should probably be as a separate article that is linked in somehow. What's the style for such things? Should the text of the ordinance be included in an article about it? Or should it just be a discussion of the various aspects of the ordinance with an external link to the actual text?

I think it's important to mention the anti-pornography ordinance because it's one of the events most referred to when discussing MacKinnon in feminist publications (or at least the ones that i've read. sorry, i can't think of the specific examples at the moment). In one of the articles currently listed in the "external links" section, it refers to MacKinnon as a proponent of censorship, but I believe that MacKinnon argued the ordinance not from a censorship standpoint or from an anti-sex standpoint, but rather from a civil rights standpoint saying that pornography causes measurable harm to women and that when it does, women should be able to sue. Doviende 22:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Based on what I've read in her book Only Words, my take has always been that MacKinnon argues pornography isn't and hasn't ever been actual speech, and thus can't be protected (or, for that matter, censored). The Literate Engineer 03:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

One of the external links ( The Outsider: Catharine MacKinnon ) -> ( http://www.tnstate.edu/cmcginnis/theoutsider.htm ) is password-protected and inaccessible to most. This should probably be changed or deleted.

Bloom Radio 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Citation needed

[edit]

Could somebody provide a citation for this:

Instead, Dworkin and MacKinnon defined pornography as: "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words" that also includes a specific list of concrete presentations ranging from objectification to extreme violence. Instead of condemning pornography for violating "community standards" of sexual decency or modesty, they characterized pornography as a form of sex discrimination, and sought to give women the right to seek damages under civil rights law.

-- I put in the text of the ordinance and also provided a citation.

It can be found in her proposed Los Angeles County Anti-pornography Civil Rights Law work. part 3. definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.236.2 (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious of that. Catharine MacKinnon discussed the Los Angeles ordinance in In Harm's Way, by her and Andrea Dworkin (Harvard University Press), at page 357 and it doesn't quite correspond to what the original poster above quotes. The quotation may refer to the Indianapolis and other bills. See also Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance#Definition of pornography.
By the way, "Could somebody ....." and "-- I put in ...." appear to be separate posts at different times, perhaps by different editors, so the matter may already have been resolved.
Nick Levinson (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC) (Correction: adding one comma: 05:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The following statement needs support, "In February 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada largely accepted MacKinnon's theories of equality, hate propaganda, and pornography, citing extensively from a brief she co-authored in a ruling against Manitoba pornography distributor Donald Butler."

According to Dworkin/MacKinnon joint press release, http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OrdinanceCanada.html, Butler did not implement their theories of Pornography and Civil Rights. Further, although the presser claims that MacKinnon did work with LEAF, she is not listed as a co-author of their brief and a quick review of the Butler Opinion does not seem to support the idea that it extensively quoted the LEAF brief. 208.74.146.1 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All pubs or just the books

[edit]

You know, Dr. MacKinnon's list of publications is listed at her faculty web page. Should we restrict the list to just her books? I do not feel strongly about this one way or the other, but most profs. do not get the full list of pubs at Wikipedia. If Dr. MacKinnon is a special case because she is so widely cited, then I concede the point, but just from a matter of style, I think that her list of books describes who she is pretty well and the long list of publications provides the reader with a limited amount of new information. Maybe just a paragraph summarizing the list would be more effective. -- 75.24.213.40 00:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list was added by User:Currer1013 in March 2006, that account did litttle else. Well, it is a judgement call. Most peopel will likely skip over the list, but I will leave it in for now, again because she is so widely cited. -- 75.26.4.46 05:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you addressed this! I will prune further. --FeralOink (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

The entry is extremely biased. Are her critics even mentioned? What about the fact that they call her a "Feminazi," which is a testament to extreme views? Even many of her fellow leftists detest her legal philosophy, for example, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice.

You're welcome to add the views of said critics, assuming they're notable enough to warrant being mentioned. I don't have any of Hentoff's books, so I can't do so easily, but perhaps you can. --zenohockey 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted my comment. Was thinking of something else. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
59.167.111.154 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article reads like it was written by McKinnon herself. It needs a massive clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.167.212 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The article is very sympathetic to Mackinnon, who has taken some radical and controversial stances, and been the subject of more than her share of criticism. Perhaps you will be bold and make some referenced changes to it?--Cybermud (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Censored?

[edit]

MacKinnon wants pornography "censored"? Huh? With friends like the nudist Nikki Craft, maybe our problem is communicaiton. Are we, perhaps, not defining pornography very well? The old "I know it when I see it" does not cut much ice with an trained and disciplined mind like MacKinnon. -- PinkCake 19:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reshaped the article slightly. MacKinnon is clearly a legal scholar. It seems we are having some difficulty defining what I will call her "social legacy" is, so I have given that subject its own section. This seems to have to do with some "theories" she has that are strictly of a social nature and her relationship to other feminists. Now, can we get some supporting documentation about the assertions made? After we tighten that up, then maybe we can add ONE SENTENCE to the lead section about it, whatever "it" is. Also: If her scholarly legal writings translate to actual laws in some country where English is an official language, then I am willing to entertain that they are notable beyond our duty to index them. The rest will tend to devolved into legal mumbo jumbo that dissipates not long beyond the lifetime of the writer. I REALLY respect Prof. MacKinnon, but I want to know the real impact of her legal writings beyond just the wishful thinking of an old woman (I am sorry to put it so bluntly, but please let's be practical here - she has written much and we need a coherent and correct executive summary and not just a flavor of the day about the latest sophmoric gripe about MacKinnon just because her message is not necessarily the life the of party). -- PinkCake 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not just her sensational(ized) views

[edit]

It would also be helpful to spend more time on her most successful (within law) contribution to legal theory - the sexual harassment doctrine, and the framing of sexual harassment as discrimination under Title VII and Equal Protection law.

Her analysis of pornography deserves balanced treatment - it's also what she is publicly linked with most often. But some of that is pure sensationalism - her view is easy to caricature.

Anyway, it shouldn't overshadow the sexual harassment doctrine - which probably should not be subsumed into "other work." You could argue that creating the situation where people are able to sue for sexual harassment (which was not possible until recently) is _as great_ a contribution to Americans experience of law, and to legal theory, as her critique of pornography. Djripley 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag for bias

[edit]

In the last couple of months, this article has been greatly expanded by anonymous editor 68.50.186.198. While his or her contribution has been valuable, it is flawed by flagrant bias in favor of the views of the subject of the article, Catherine MacKinnon, therefore putting the article in violation of WP:NPOV.

Just for starters – a whole section of "accolades" by admirers by Cass Sunstein, but absolutely no mention of criticism of MacKinnon, much less a section? Give me a break! MacKinnon is one of the single most controversial legal thinkers of our day – an article which shortchanges this criticism is one that's flagrantly biased in her favor. MacKinnon's approach to law and feminism has been heavily criticized from several quarters for many years now, from several quarters – civil libertarians, of course, as well as sex-positive feminists and postmodernist thinkers. Notable authors who have written works critical of MacKinnon include Nat Hentoff, Nadine Strossen, Ronald Dworkin, Wendy Kaminer, Susie Bright, Donna Haraway, John Maxwell Coetzee, Drucilla Cornell, Angela Harris, and Janet Halley, among others. A rather large body of work to completely ignore, no?

I insist that the NPOV tag be kept on this article until this imbalance is redressed. Peter G Werner 10:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the entire "Legacy" section, as it was essentially nothing more than a long series of quotes praising MacKinnon and her views. This section provided little or nothing in the way of biographical information or meaningful discussion of her views on feminism or law. Peter G Werner 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few facts implicitly critical of Mckinnon's outlook. Does anyone know the current state of Canada's Mckinnon-influenced pornography laws? Just in that ten-year old Wired article there's horrendous details, like the raiding an art gallery and near-exclusive targeting of gay pornography. (Urb 29 January 2007)

I'm not clear on exact situation vis-a-vis Canadian law. The Butler decision still stands, but I believe the Canadian government has stopped its specific targeting of the gay community, and that may have come out of a court decision. Also, Canada seems to be on less of an anti-porn kick than it was 10-15 years ago, with non-violent porn being for the most part freely available. (Porn with SM or "violent" imagery may be still the target of censors.) Montreal may actually have the most "wide open" sex industry in North America at this point. I wish I could give you some specific cites for all of this, though. Peter G Werner 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article too long, too many quotes

[edit]

Looking further at the contributions of 68.50.186.198, the article as it stands is far too long and un-concise, and far too reliant on direct quotation. Somebody looking for a concise introduction to MacKinnon's work and ideas simply will not find it here. Considerable cleanup is needed to reduce the amount of direct quotation in the article. Perhaps much of this article needs to go into a breakout article or articles of some kind. Peter G Werner 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need more personal information

[edit]

In this article the discussion of anything personal about her stops after the discussion of her childhood. The rest of the article discusses only her writings and court cases. Is she married? Is she homosexual? Does she have a life partner? Does she have hobbies or other personal life aside from her professional life? This is supposed to be a biography, not solely a legal and political analysis of her work.

NNDB usually has that kind of stuff--64.9.236.149 04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what NNDB is. I agree, the biography part is practically non-existant, and its a real weak point in this article. I don't know if the people who have been contributing such information consider that topic "frivolous" or "unprofessional", but including biographical information is very important. A person is more than just the sum of their published works and court cases, after all. As for relationships, she was in a very high-profile engagement to Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson for several year during the 1990s, though that relationship ended some time ago. I'll try to add something about it. Peter G Werner 03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Why is an engagement relevant to anything? I fail to understand why an engagement is relevant to a law professor's career. Or why anyone feels the need to know her hobbies or "life partner." It verges on People magazine. 174.125.126.201 (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for personal information

[edit]

It might give you some idea as to where some of her controversial ideas come from. 165.247.1.148 08:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Upper middle class."

[edit]

In re: the beginning of the biography--is there any legitimate working definition of "upper middle class," as opposed to "upper class" or "rich" that includes congressmen and federal judges? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.42.239 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it sufficient to state that her father was (presumably) a lawyer, a congressmen and a federal judge? It's an excellent question: what is upper middle class? rich? Is it related to family income? Family wealth? Who knows the numbers?174.125.126.201 (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her class background can certainly be related to biases that she brings to her work carried over from the environment she grew up in. I may be wrong, but I do not think that her research into porn films involved actually interviewing any of the actresses in those films. Her attitude towards them seemed condescending and, frankly classist. Pascalulu88 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I may be wrong," indeed. A moment's research reveals that MacKinnon's position on pornography arose out of her legal representation of, and friendship with, Linda Boreman, the actress who was presented in Deep Throat as "Linda Lovelace." See https://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2013/08/catharine-mackinnon-on-lovelace.html . A research-based legal and political analysis that you disagree with is not fairly characterized as a "bias." PDGPA (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But is the Linda Boreman case representative of all or most of the women who act in porn films? Did/does MacKinnon have any interest in the experiences of porn performers who were not traumatized or abused? MacKinnon apparently believes that Boreman's case is representative enough, but is that an opinion based on empirical evidence? I still believe that MacKinnon's class background can have an influence upon her approach to the performers in porn, but it's enough, I think, to mention her background and let readers research for themselves to see if it appears to be relevant to any legitimate critique of MacKinnon's works.

And "A research-based legal and political analysis" can be biased or not depending upon the parameters of the research. If MacKinnon disregarded input from porn performers who have positive feelings about their work, that would be a sampling bias. Pascalulu88 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion and analysis, which I assume to be reasonable, and which may even be right. (Or may not.) But Wikipedia is built on information from reliable sources. Unless you can cite a published "reliable source," as defined in Wikipedia's own editorial guidelines, expressing this point of view, it cannot be included in the article. PDGPA (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other Critics

[edit]

Slavoj Zizek points out in Welcome to the Desert of the Real in regards to contemporary feminist theory of MacKinnon's brand that: "is ultimately a profoundly reactionary ideological movement, always ready to legitimize US army interventions with feminist concerns, always there to make dismissive patronizing remarks about Third World populations (from its hypocritical obsession with clitoridectomy to MacKinnon's racist remarks about how ethnic cleansing and rape are in Serb Genes..." Apologies for the lengthy quote but I would be interested in perhaps a source for MacKinnon's comments on Serbs and also does Zizek qualify as a legitimate critic? -UMDStudent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.146.127 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"hypocritical obsession with clitoridectomy" Only a man would come up with a comment this stupid. Pascalulu88 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from 1989 Yale commencement address

[edit]

In her 1989 Yale commencement address, Catherine MacKinnon reportedly made the following statement:

  • "'Some of the proud mothers in the audience [are] sitting next to men who [have] battered them. Some of the well-dressed fathers [have] sexually abused the women who [are] now graduating.'

according to Christopher M. Finan, the author of Catharine A. MacKinnon: The Rise of a Feminist Censor, 1983-1993.

http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/writings/mackinnon/mac-rise-censor

I suggest that this statement by Ms. MacKinnon is notable. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

The problem is that the source article in question doesn't actually state that as a direct quote, but rather a paraphrasing of what she said, plus there are no other sources that report this. The only places where I've seen the above stated as a direct quote are by MRA websites associated with authors like Glen Sacks, who state the comment as a direct quote, but give the above article as the only reference. To say that's extremely problematic reporting is to put it mildly.
I would not put it beyond MacKinnon to have said something like this, as making statements for shock value is part of her rhetorical style. Nevertheless, I would be against including this quote in the article here unless it was much better sourced, particularly given Wikipedia's rules about WP:BLP.
Perhaps somebody could consult the Yale student paper(s) from this time? If she said something like this, surely it would have engendered newsworthy controversy on the campus at that time.
Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MacKinnon quote can be found here:- Catharine A. MacKinnon, "Graduation Address, Yale Law School." Yale Journal of Law and Feminism. 299 (1990): 2

Zimbazumba (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the actual quote and source:-

"We are told that sex inequality is over, when some proud mothers must, statistically, sit here at graduation next to their batterers; when some excited graduates must sit a row or two away from their rapists, relieved to be leaving their sexual harassers, trying not to think about those who molested them as children, who may also be celebrating this moment with them."

Source:- https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol2/iss2/5/ (contains link to actual document) CSDarrow (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MATERIALS CENSORED

[edit]

Materials documenting Mackinnon's support for Canadian serial/thrill-killer Karla Homulka have been removed. Researchers will have to go to an authentic encyclopedia for the full story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofchecker1 (talk • contribs)

Copied from the article to the talk page - Alison ❤ 19:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

case deletion in October

[edit]

A large chunk of content was deleted for lack of sourcing. It does, however, have one source in it. I don't have that source handy, so I don't know if it supports the rest; perhaps it does, since what was deleted was roughly on one subject. If it does, the source should be cited in probably all of the paragraphs, but that needs checking. I also haven't judged the quality of the source. Skimming suggests many attributions need to be added into sentences, as some content seems opinionated enough to require attribution. Does anyone know about this content and source? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

[edit]

Would someone please provide a citation for this passage, "MacKinnon's book Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination is the eighth most-cited American legal book published since 1978, according to a study published by Fred Shapiro in January 2000." Nearly50 (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Nearly50[reply]

Pornography exposure and sexual violence

[edit]

http://www.apa.org/divisions/div46/articles/malamuth.pdf

This study found that exposure to pornography did not have enduring effects on aggression towards women, the opposite of the claim it was being used to support.

"With respect to exposure effects, the results did not reveal that repeated exposure to violent or nonviolent pornography had any significant effect on laboratory aggression against women. These findings appear to be inconsistent with previous data showing that exposure to violent pornography may increase males' laboratory aggression toward women (e.g., Donnerstein, 1980a,b; 1984; Donnerstein and Berkowitz, 1981; Malamuth, 1978). The most apparent explanation for this discrepancy is that earlier investigations examined immediate effects (i.e., in same session that exposures were presented) whereas the present experiment tested for relatively long-term effects. It may be that exposure to violent pornography might have an immediate impact on aggressive behavior against women but this effect may dissipate quickly over time."

So, I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.45.145 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted statement was vague, so I made it more specific, made the citation more specific, and edited accordingly. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

[edit]

The second half of the "criticisms" section, beginning "Anti-pornography ordinances authored by MacKinnon and Dworkin in the United States sought for harm against victims", should be removed, ideally perhaps placed somewhere else in the article. It is not about criticism of MacKinnon. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masson

[edit]

Rms125a@hotmail.com, in this edit, you again removed all mention of MacKinnon's relationship with Jeffrey Masson with the comment that the material is "irrelevant". Perhaps you are confused about what "irrelevant" means in the context of a biographical article? The material would indeed be irrelevant if it were not about the article subject, but in fact it is clearly about her life, and thus is relevant to her biography. You have offered no good reason for removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a@hotmail.com has once again removed mention of MacKinnon's relationship with Masson from the article. I will take this opportunity to repeat that the material is in no way irrelevant or inappropriate, and does belong in the article. If Rms125a@hotmail.com believes that the source used is not reliable he should explain why. I am sure that, in any case, better sources could be found. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged relationship is irrelevant cruft, if not outright gossip with no meaning or significancem except perhaps to soften MacKinnon's image. Quis separabit? 06:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find that a remarkably unconvincing response. The relationship is not "alleged", it was actual. No one disputes that it occurred, and thus it is scarcely "gossip". Relationships that people have with other people are indeed often mentioned in their Wikipedia articles, and most editors do not have a problem with this. Unless you propose to remove all mentions of relationships between one person and another, I cannot see a justification for removing mention of this relationship in particular. Would your comment that mention of the relationship serves to "soften MacKinnon's image" reflect a concern that mentioning it somehow portrays her in a flattering light? I find that an unreasonable concern; the relationship surely reflects neither well nor badly on her. It wouldn't even be our concern as editors if it did. Finally, since you do not bother to explain why the source is not reliable, I am going to assume that there is no problem with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to debase myself or Wikipedia by giving my personal opinion of MacKinnon. I would point out that I said "except perhaps to soften MacKinnon's image". My comments stand. Quis separabit? 07:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have had every opportunity to give a convincing explanation of why that content should not be in this article, and you have failed to do so. You have not explained what is wrong with mentioning a relationship, given that many Wikipedia articles about living people mention their relationships. It seems clear that it is relevant information for a biographical article. The reliability of the source would be a more valid concern, but you have suggested no reason at all why the source would not be reliable. The content will therefore be restored to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Catharine MacKinnon. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Catharine MacKinnon. 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. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catharine MacKinnon. 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. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

title of page

[edit]

As Catharine A. MacKinnon is named professionally with the middle initial, such as in Encyclopedia Brittanica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Catharine-A-MacKinnon on all of her books: https://www.amazon.com/Catharine-A-MacKinnon/e/B000APLJF0?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1585241815&sr=8-1 as a professor: https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10540/MacKinnon and in the press: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/books/review/metoo-workplace-sexual-harassment-catharine-mackinnon.html

I believe this page ought to be titled the same way.--PaulThePony (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PaulThePony I must object to you moving the page on procedural grounds. Having put the matter up for discussion, you should have left a reasonable time for people to express their views. For most discussions this is a minimum of 7 days. --John B123 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies, John B123. I got this guidance at the Teahouse, "Hello, PaulThePony. The talk page was the right place to propose this, but evidently there's not much traffic there: the last non-administrative edit to it was in 2016. In this case, you suggestion is clearly a good one (see TITLE), and I suggest you simply move the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Name_of_page%3A_when_is_a_change_appropriate%3F[reply]

I welcome further discussion with you, being educated about protocols, etc. This was the first time I moved a page; as you note, seven days certainly seems reasonable as a minimum. --PaulThePony (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulThePony: Hi. The "correct" procedure to rename a page is to tag it with Template:Requested move. This will publicise the the proposal in various places including article alerts to whatever WikiProjects the talk page is tagged with. This will give the proposal the maximum coverage. As that is a guideline rather than a strict rule, it's perfectly acceptable to propose the move on the talk page as you have done. Although not formally laid down, 7 days is normally accepted as the minimum, but if discussions are still going after 7 day then the time needs to be extended to allow the process of arguments and counter-arguments to run its course. The third way is to just boldly move the page. Bold moves are generally only carried out where there is little interest in the article and the move is unlikely to be controversial. Bold moves may be reverted if somebody objects.
Whilst, as suggested at the VP, talk page activity is an indicator of interest, a better indicator is the page history. If the article hasn't been edited for a year then it's unlikely many people are interested in the page. If it's edited frequently by different editors then it's likely more people take an interest. As there are no hard and fast rules, what to do is to a degree subjective. My view is that once you have started on one of the options you should see that one through. My advice would have been that as you had put the proposal on the talk page you should let that one run and not move the page before at leat 7 days had elapsed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John B123. I really appreciate you offering those rationales. All that makes very good sense to me. As you note, if the page has been relatively inactive, one might get away with it without leaving others thinking protocols were stampeded. This is partly to say, I do understand his reasoning. Whether or not there's been much activity, however, it seems more than reasonable to me to use the seven day waiting period as a rule of thumb. No harm in that. Goodness knows, it read "Catharine MacKinnon" for years. This tag is new and will be useful to me should I ever think a page ought to be moved again: Template:Requested move. Now that I've had this experience, I understand more fully the value of putting something out for discussion in one location and waiting several days for responses. Regarding this: "to whatever WikiProjects the talk page is tagged with," would one add tags for that purpose or are pertinent ones already part of the page? I have experienced most everyone in the last year or two as very cordial and helpful and it's a nice thing to see and now be part of. :) --PaulThePony (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulThePony: Hi. I'm glad your experiences on Wikipedia have been good so far. Unless it's a recently created page, the Wikiprojects interested in the page will have added their banners to the talk page so there's no need to add any more. Regards --John B123 (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, John B123. --PaulThePony (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Feminist" or "radical feminist" in lede?

[edit]

An anonymous editor recently substituted "radical feminist" for "feminist" in the lede sentence's description of MacKinnon's work. Another editor reverted the edit. I am interested in initiating a discussion among interested, fairminded, and experienced editors of whether "radical feminist" (particularly, as that concept is explicated in the article on radical feminism) is indeed the better description. Or, on the other hand, is it an inappropriate descriptor here for some reason? The phrase is used in the infobox, and later in the article itself. PDGPA (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few major sources in the article mention that she is an activist on gender equality issues and do not specify radical feminism. Considering that radical feminism is a specific form of feminism, I think just "feminist" is more accurate here. 23impartial (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catharine_A._MacKinnon&oldid=1252189733"