Talk:Mary Daly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early influences?

Can anyone identify who (aside from the Goddess Herself, and the illuminating experiences of awareness+female gender+catholic theologian role) were influences on Mary Daly's early work?

This comment appeared, untitled, above the table of contents. I invented the title in order to give the question normal processing. It appears unsigned and apparently no bot caught it to append the subbmitter's IP. I didn't research the talk page's history to find out when it appeared. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The above question-comment was the very first comment on the page, according to the page history. It's attributed to 24.130.132.83 and is as of 06:03, 27 September 2004. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The circumstances

From the press release http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v9/f15/daly.html of her employer, Boston College: "Daly, a radical feminist, gained notoriety during the years at Boston College over her refusal to admit male students into her theology classes. Boston College had consistently reprimanded Daly, insisting that her actions were in violation of University policy and Title IX of federal law...After refusing to admit two male students into her class in 1998, University administrators once again confronted Daly and insisted that she admit the students in accordance with school policy.

Refuses questions from men

Would someone explain under what circumstances Daly has refused to take questions from men? I understand that she used to insist on the right to teach women and men separately, for the benefit of the women, and that there was significant opposition on legal and other grounds. If she refused to take questions from men in a lecture that she had restricted (even illegally) to women only, those circumstances should be mentioned. As the article stands, one gets the impression that she refused any sort of communication with men, which is really quite different. If it is true that she made that sort of blanket refusal, I would like to see proof. Shorne 19:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: refusing questions from men, see the controversies link or her own web pages. Or check out http://www.wie.org/j16/daly.asp to see her patiently deal with an interviewer who wants her to focus on men. See http://www.jorjet.com/jorjetnet/interviews/maryd/ regarding how originally her students were *all* men. She eventually decided to reserve time for women; some men, and some women, cannot tolerate that. See http://www.cios.org/mailboxes/gender/03039100.522 and http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/daly2.html for fascinating and thoughtful threads on this "issue". I myself attended a visiting lecture she gave in the 1980s; it was publicized, and announced during the lecture, that men were respectly requested NOT to take the microphones during the Q&A section, so that women could have the time. Of course, some men felt their rights were trampled, and were furious when the overwhelming response from almost all the other women and men there was to shut up or leave. It's amusing to see how her page has been vandalized in the past; she provokes strong reactions.

RE: her influences: Nelle Morton. Roman Catholicism. Simone deBueavoir. Monique Wittig. You might want to read Significant Contemporary Feminists: A Biocritical Sourcebook, ed. Jennifer Scanlon, which I have seen referenced but not read myself. Of the 1960s and later feminists - hard to pick out who is the influencerand who is the influenced, in that Cauldron.

Penis Envy?

Removed "Mary Daly might be [been argued to] suffering from penis envy" - This is just silly, and is unsourced, so seemed to refer to a consensus within psychoanalysis, which is absurd. ps. To the above - why are you referencing things that you havent read? Best, lookatyougo May 10, 2006.

Jesiut-run institution

What does that have to do with her dismisal? IT sounds as if a comment is being made aginst the Jesuits. If no reason is put forth, I will delete it.66.211.136.146 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The university itself might disagree with you; I think it is relevant; as a Jesuit institution, the school has history of respect for both academic freedom AND Roman Catholic dogma/tradition; a challenging dynamic for these scholars. However I have adjusted phrasing slightly; it was a Jesuit run institution when she was hired as well as when she was retired...

witch hunt

it says "The real figure seems to be between 40-60,000 (see the Wikipedia Witch Hunt article for more details.)". pls don't send to another article just to find the source. so I added {{fact}} there Towsonu2003 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added sources. I also added {{fact}} to the person who'd quoted the 200,000 figure in the notes section.

It should be noted that, even accepting the 200,000 accusations figure (which is twice as high as Lavack's - which I've read, as opposed to Barstow, which I haven't) and assuming they all ended up in executions, which isn't true, then Daly was out by a FACTOR of 45 (in reality, given 100,000 deaths, she was out by a factor of 90. Given the - far more likely - lower figures of 60 or 75,000, then she's out by a factor of over 100.) She has never, to my knowledge, commented on or retracted her figure of 9 million, even as that figure was taken and used by others for political and ideological ends. As such, she stands responsible for perpetrating an intellectual fraud. Maybe I'll write a paragraph about this in the article, but I'm not sure how well it stands on the guidelines for biographies on living people. Steve3742 6 March 2007

I've edited the notes bit about Barstow that someone wrote - I've now read the statistical part of her book and the 100,000 figure isn't a "conservtive estimate" according to her (though it might be to the anonymous author), hence it's not NPOV. So I've deleted the "conservative estimate" bit. If the anonymous author wishes to say that 100,000 is a "conservative estimate", then they need to cite a source who's written that. It's also obvious that the author is using Barstow as a source for the 200,000 accusations and 85% women stats too, so I've removed my {{fact}} and put that in.

I disagree with Barstow, by the way, I think her methodology is suspect - she bases her estimates on Lavack's and then increases his figure using dubious justification. But people are free to quote her as a source, but not to add weasel words like "conservative estimate." Barstow doesn't think 100,000 is a conservative estimate, she considers it to be her most accurate estimate. And people using her as a source should say that. Steve3742 13:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed someone's edited my contribution. I agree with some of it - 'witches' being in inverted commas, "murders" instead of executions - but I've put back the stuff about the comparisoms to the Holocaust and refined the stuff about the figure's acceptance amongst the neo-pagan and feminist communities.

Then there was "seems to be" for the real figure, which I've changed to "almost certainly". This needs a lengthy digression:

Any period in History will have its uncertainties and innaccuracies. The further back you go, the more of them there are, as a rule. So people can say stuff like "it's impossible to say exactly how many..." and they're absolutely right. They can also say "some authorities have placed the figue at..." and there will often be someone they can quote who has done this. For example, I could say "It's impossible to say how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but some authorities have said it could be as few as 100,000." This would be technically true - we don't know for certain how many were killed and some authorities (David Irving and other charlatans) have said it was as low as 100,000. So, technically true. But a lie nevertheless. Because we know the figure to be between 5.5-6.5 million and the figure of 6 million represents an educated guess. Irving et al are all charlatans, lying to press a point of view.

So, too, with the Witch Hunt. A statement like "It's impossible to say how many women were killed in the Witch Hunt, but some authorities have said it could be as many as nine million" is technically true, just as the above statement was. But it's a lie nevertheless.

There has been a great deal of research into both the Witch Hunt and the Holocaust and whereas we don't know the exact figures of the numbers of murder victims in both cases, we do have figures we can use. When people like Lavack and Barstow come up with figures based on metriculous research over a number of years that vary between 60-100,000, they're not just guessing, like Daly appears to have done, they're giving accurate estimates. They could be wrong, of course, but not by a factor of 100 as Daly says they were. To say that they are out by that much is like saying that David Irving could be correct, that all the other Holocaust researchers were wrong and out by a factor of 100. At the very least, this position needs backing up with proof, research, etc. Neither Daly nor Irving have produced anything like that. So I think I'm justified in saying that the true figure is almost certainly between 60-100,000.Steve3742 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice someone keeps changing my contribution. That's fine, it's part of Wikipedia, but if the person who does this could post here and say why they've changed it, then maybe I wouldn't just change it back. I'm a little annoyed at giving detailed reasons for what I wrote only to have it changed WITHOUT A SINGLE WORD BEING WRITTEN BY THE CHANGER TO SAY WHY. Write about what you've done here. I may agree with it or at least some of it, if I know why.Steve3742 12:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I assume you must be talking about my edits, since I just edited the article. But I'm not at all sure which change exactly you're objecting to. It's great that you've spelled out the reasoning behind your edits here, and I'd be glad to discuss any of my changes as well, but I need to know what you think should be different. I can't just guess! -- Shunpiker 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, for a start there's the phrase "has been criticized as having no basis in research" when referring to the nine million figure, I think this should be "has no basis in research", which I've changed it to. The reasoning is pretty much set out above, but basically 1) Daly did no research, she just quoted Gage without checking the accuracy of the figures; 2) Gage, too, did no research, she quoted another guy, again without checking; 3) the actual figure was arrived at by finding the number of witch burnings over a five year period in one small part of Germany and extrapolating to cover the whole of Europe for a 200 year period. Using the same method, we could determine the number of Jews killed in Denmark during WWII and then extrapolate over the whole of Europe. This would result in a figure of less than 500,000 Jews killed during the Holocaust - a Holocaust denier's wet dream. This "research" is not actually research. Hence, i think it's accurate to say that the figure "has no basis in rsearch", as opposed to "has been criticized as having no basis in research".

Secondly, the whole Gynocide thing and Holocaust comparisoms. The figure of nine million is not just high, it's incredibly high. I wrote "ridiculously high" to start with, but maybe that's too judgemental. It does, I think, need an adverb - is "incredibly" OK? The reason is that Barstow, with her figure of 100,000 is high, nearly twice as high as most other historians' estimates. But nine million - that's ridiculously high, incredibly high, astonishingly high - it needs an adverb to distinguish it from a merely high estimate (like Barstow's).

Daly knew what she was doing with words like "Gynocide" and numbers like nine million. The comparism with the Holocaust is implicit if not explicit (I haven't read the article for a while and so can't remember if she makes an explicit comparisom, like you say. But it's definitely implicit.) And I think this needs to be said. Hence I've said it.

So, that's my reasoning. If you disagree, change it, but an explanation as to why would be nice.Steve3742 12:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve, Thanks for the response. I'm pretty sure "incredibly" falls under the "words to avoid/words which editorialize" category:

Adverbs such as ironically, amusingly, (un)fortunately, and interestingly (as well as their adjectival forms) express an editorial opinion: the editor has found something to be ironic, or amusing, or interesting, etc. Others may not share this opinion, so use words like these with caution.

Personally, I find the figure of nine million incredible, but it's clear from the article that others do not. I don't think it's compatible with WP:NPOV for Wikipedia to issue such a judgment. If you want to call attention to the magnitude of the discrepancy -- which seems reasonable to me -- it would be better to find wording which avoids hyperbole.

As for "has no basis in research", we need attribution for that assertion. It's essentially an academic euphemism for "made up out of whole cloth". It may or may not be true, and I'm sure it has been asserted by others (hence my wording), but I don't think the article should assert it without sourcing. I also think that it would be useful to include any response Daly has to her critics on this point. -- Shunpiker 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Incredible doesn't express an editorial opinion, it represents the fact that the figure of nine million falls outside the range that a reasonable person could agree with. Re Holocaust denial again, somebody could say that Irving's figure of 100,000 was "incredibly low" and I don't think that would fall under "words to avoid/words which editorialize" or WP:NPOV. Or would I be wrong in thinking so?

I'll attribute the "has no basis in research in a few days (I'm at work at the moment and don't have time)

To the best of my knowledge, Daly has never responded. If you can find a response, I agree it ought to be used here. Steve3742 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve, It seems to me that you're saying "People who believe or don't believe in X aren't reasonable." Everybody's got opinions like that, but it's not neutral to enshrine them in unattributed narrative. The addition of "since been disproven", like "has no basis in research", also requires references. Until these issues are resolved, I think it would be best to tag the section as a {{pov}} dispute. -- Shunpiker 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Shunpiker, I am indeed saying that people who believe nine million people were killed in the Witch Hunt aren't reasonable. They either 1) have read Daly or Starhawk and not bothered to check it; or 2) hold an opinion that disagrees with ALL research done in to the subject. I consider both to be unreasonable. Re Holocaust denial again, I don't think it's wrong to say that people whio deny the Holocaust are unreasonable because they either 1) have read David Irving and not bothered to check it or 2) hold an opinion that disagrees with ALL research done in to the subject.

OK, "has no basis in research" references. This is topsy turvy. I can't prove she did no research, just that the conclusions she came to disagree with EVERYONE who HAS done research. I think it's up to her to prove she has done research and to say what it is. I've already quoted enough people who have done research and have come up with figures between 60,000-100,000. Find ONE result, based on research, that says otherwise. Daly, to the best of my knowledge, refuses to comment or defend her statement so I think we can conclude that she can't. As such, I think "since been disproven" is also OK - EVERY piece of research supports it and shows what Daly said to be wrong. How much more (dis)proof is necessary?

I don't agree with the {{pov}}, for the reasons aboveSteve3742 11:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given some thought to this and I believe that "unreasonable" has two different meanings here. This ties into philosophical debates about connections between belief and knowledge, which I studied briefly at University.

OK, if a lot of people, perhaps a majority, belive something, then it's not unreasonable for someone who knows and talks to these people to believe that this is true - even if it isn't. For example, it's not unreasonable for a lot of people, perhaps the majority of the western world, to believe that Marconi invented the radio - even though he didn't (look at the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me and you'll see it was David E. Hughes in 1878.) But most people believe that it was Marconi. This belief isn't unreasonable for someone WHO HASN'T STUDIED IT. People tend to belive what they hear from others. This is meaning 1 of the word "unreasonable".

However, if people then research into something, look up what others have studied about it, check out the facts, etc., and find that what they previously thought was untrue then they can be expected to change their beliefs. Not to do so would be unreasonable in meaning 2 of the word. People who still claim that Marconi invented the radio after studying the history of the radio are being unreasonable.

Now I contend that Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, uses meaning 2 - that an unreasonable belief is one whiuch A WELL INFORMED individual cannot rationally hold. And I hold that to say that nine million people were killed in the Witch Hunt is just such an unreasonable belief, and I believe that I have adequately documented why above. I am aware that a large number of people hold this belief, just as a large number of people believe that Marconi invented the radio. But they're wrong, in both cases. It's not unreasonable (using meaning 1) for people to believe these things, but it the beliefs are unreasonable (using meaning 2).

As such, I believe that using phrases like "incredibly high number", "has no basis in research" and "has been disproven" in the article does not violate WP:NPOV. Steve3742 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you state your convictions clearly. But no amount of supporting evidence can change "incredibly high" to anything but a subjective judgment. Quoting a notable historian saying, "x is incredible," would be encyclopedic. But saying "x is incredible" without attributing the judgment is introducing an irreducible opinion. Wikipedia should not assert unattributed opinions, no matter how well-informed. Put differently: "Incredibly" editorializes regardless of the strength of the arguments that could be summoned to support the editorialization. But don't take my word for it. Let's get some other editors looking at the article. -- Shunpiker 17:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If any of us here had been writing a book at the time in which it was relevant to know the number of people killed but determining that number was not the point then we would have either quoted published research at the time. The extrapolation behind the figure Daly quoted is demonstrably wrong - but it wasn't then. Even if an attempt at determining the number was done at the time it would still seem high to us now; because obtaining further historical sources has generally led to lower estimates as the bigger incidents led a larger mark on history and so biased the figures used for extrapolation. To say that Daly's figures had no basis in research is nonsense. Consider that people here have been comparing other people's figures, are any of you actually trawling through ever relevant archived document in Europe? No. You are doing research by examining other sources. This is what Daly did. 83.147.166.27 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that the state of research into the witch craze was that bad in 1973. But, for the sake of argument, lets grant it. Since then? There's been lots of well documented, well researched books on the witch craze since at least 1980. And I'm not aware of Daly ever saying she was wrong in any of the later editions of her book or elsewhere. That is irresponsible and could be considered intellectual fraud. Steve3742 (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To resolve this dispute, how about, instead of "incredibley high" you put "this figure, 100 times greater than the majority of other estimates", or even "extremely high"....I think it is also fair to use the word 'disproved' - if you can't use it here then you can't use it any historical essay, you might as well say that holocaust deniers can't be disproved.

82.35.102.252 (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Any period in History will have its uncertainties and innaccuracies. The further back you go, the more of them there are, as a rule." -- What nonsense, that's an absurd rule. Uncertainties and inaccuracies are based upon the number of documents left for historians to work with. It's perfectly possible for things to degenerate while chronologically growing closer, indeed it happens fairly often. Consider the Greeks. 131.111.243.37 (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, a throwaway remark I made 2 years ago seems to have really got under your skin. Still, I can defend it.

You are, of course, right to say that it's the number of documents left for historians to work with that determines the uncertainties and innaccuracies about a particular time in history. But I maintain that AS A RULE, the further back you go, the less documentary evidence you have, and the more uncertain this documentary evidence becomes (a recanting of a story that is itself recanting a story, and so on.) There are exceptions, of course - you mentioned the Greeks, the Dark Ages could be considered another - but it's the way to bet. We know more about Rome than we know about Greece. We know more about Greece than we know about Babylon. And so on.

A bit off topic, that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve3742 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On historiography, although I'm not an expert on the witch hunt or the Nazi holocaust: A method of studying one sublocation and then extrapolating by population, population of a faith, or some such may be a valid method when better evidence one way or the other is unavailable, and my understanding is that much more good evidence is available for the scale of the Nazi holocaust of centuries later. All else equal between the two subjects, then, extrapolating may have been valid for a study of the witch killings and may not have been for the Holocaust. This is not to argue that the extrapolating done by arithmetic is a perfect method; for instance, one sublocation may have been praised in its time for success in ridding itself of witches, which would suggest that a modern estimator should extrapolate with that in account, likely getting to a lesser result; but extrapolating is sometimes a valid tool and sometimes not. Thanks and at any rate, here, I'm not entering the debate on Mary Daly's figure. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops

The edit I recently made was an attempt to revert vandalism. However, it didn't seem to work... --°° $ūp£® $pÝ 0 °° 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Neuhaus?

As Richard Neuhaus is a conservativeCatholic opposed to all other forms of feminism apart from Daly's radical feminism, is it not POV to include his reference as a bibliographical one? One might as well say that the men's rights movement is virulently misogynist (it is, but that's a matter for another edit...)

Calibanu (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)User: Calibanu

There's a question of whether the source is a WP:RS at all. Per WP:RS#News organizations, an opinion column should only be used as a source for its author's opinion, not as a source of fact (as it is in this case). This is particularly inappropriate in the case of a WP:BLP. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gendercide vs. "evolutionary process"

Here are some things Mary Daly might have meant that might not be called gendercide

• Selective abortion
• Genetic manipulation
• Group natural selection: every nation with more than a few males blows itself up
• Mass suicide
• Forced evacuation into space

WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Those things could still be considered gendercide. Шизомби (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you have to "consider" then gendercide argues against using that word in the article. Unless a WP:RS uses that word with respect to Daly's philosophy, I recommend against including the word in her biography. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Those things could be defined as gendercide. However, I do agree a source would be desirable to do that in the article. I'm not pursuing one. Шизомби (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Views on men"

I added the "Undue" template because (a) nowhere does the article discuss Daly's views of women, who are the primary focus of her work, and (b) one of the two paragraphs isn't about men at all. The extrapolation that parthenogenesis doesn't involve males is a Wikipedia editor's, not Daly's; she doesn't discuss men at all in the cited section of Pure Lust. And while Daly does discuss the Virgin Birth in connection with parthenogenesis, what does that have to do with her views on men?

The second paragraph consists solely of an outrageous quotation that is, in my view, of questionable encyclopedic value.

I'd appreciate other editors' thoughts on the section. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree, and I was the one who used that title. I'm not sure what the parthenogenesis quote means, if it means anything at all. Why is "Self" capitalized? How could a person create herself? If it means existentially, how does parthenogenesis help? If Daly has ever said more directly that she supports parthenogenesis, it would be better to quote that.

On the other hand, the "outrageous"ness of the second quotation is due to the subject of the article, and it is directly related to her work. It is certainly a notable, important, and unusual belief. Her "main" work is not just about women, but about the relationships between women and men as individuals and groups. Discussing how women can escape male domination is necessarily somewhat about men.

I think it would be best to fold in the second quote somewhere else in the article, probably the "Works" section. I would prefer to call that section "Work" (singular) or "Views".

On the other hand, these two views are related in the imagining of a world without men. If the first view can be substantiated, they might fit together as a subsection of "Views". WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Read in context, the first quote is clearly not biological, and it has nothing to do with men. Pure Lust isn't available for view at Google Books or Amazon.com, so I'll type the relevant section:

The word parthenogenesis is derived from the Greek parthenos, meaning virgin, and from genesis, which means origins, and which stems from the verb gignesthai, meaning to be born. The fact of biological parthenogenesis in some species has been demonstrated. However, parthenogenesis means more than reproduction or procreation. Anne Dellenbaugh has shown that this can be heard as a New Word: [MS note: a New Word is an old word with a new meaning, and is usually denoted by a capital letter]

Within a phallocentric semantic context, parthenogenesis is a method of reproduction. But wrenched from this context and heard with a radical feminist consciousness, Parthenogenesis names a wholly different phenomenon. Hearing it in this new way requires a qualitative leap into Self-consciousness, for Parthenogenesis names nothing less than the process of a woman creating her Self.

And of course this extends to all forms of Spinning female creativity.

It seems pretty clear that Daly and Dellenbaugh are not advocating parthenogenesis as a means of eliminating men, but are discussing the birth of female consciousness and creativity. Daly writes in the middle of the following paragraph that "no father is required for this creation" — of course not, the woman has "created her Self", she didn't need a man to do it. That's Feminism 101, not gendercide. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I said "imagining a world without men", not gendercide. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to attribute that view to you, but in the past that quote has been cited by other editors as evidence that Daly supports gendercide. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That quote demonstrates that Daly believes men or masculinity or maleness constitute "contamination" of the Earth. Enthusiastic readers will connect the dots even if Daly doesn't say "go kill". Rulatir (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

source for death information

I haven't seen a media report of her death. Sources? 12.197.7.22 (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Currently, the lead section of this article establishes three points: Daly's profession (philosopher), her position (radical feminism), and that she retired from teaching after the controversy over her barring male students from her class. Isn't there something missing here? Shouldn't a summary of her philosophy be included in the lead as well? OK, I can see how that might be difficult to do - her views were somewhat eclectic, and varied over time - but given that her work is the reason she's notable in the first place, it ought to be at least briefly described in the lead. Robofish (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It's been a while since I read her books, but if nobody steps up in the next few days I'll take a stab at it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope it happens. I've read several of her books and they're great. One I only got half-way through because I stayed open to the pain and the pain got to be too much (that was Gyn/Ecology). The only one of hers I own is Wickedary and I looked through it again the other day, but the notion of extracting a concise reflection of what she was saying boggles me. Arguably, it's not complicated except where it is, if we're going to be inspired by Cliff's Notes. To preclude readers' likely misunderstandings at least for readers who read, one has to find clarifying counterbalance in her writings, such as on essentialism. And I have virtually no background in Roman Catholicism. Best wishes. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Shes awesome

The article could talk of her re-taking the language I noticed that Ms. became a word she urges the creation of re-newed meanings which are the deeply searched Pre-versals of words with re-vived source

I urge Ms. Daly to edit her wikipedia article her way with her words Its fine with me if she uses tetrachromat fonts, LAN-guage that only women can read

Rather than criticize gyn\ecology Id like to throw pieces of it up n the air for all to see to view as they prefer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.136.230 (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be awesome if Daly edited this article, considering that she died in January. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

theses/dissertations

It'd be nice to clarify whether each one listed is a thesis or a dissertation. I recall one of her books mentioning that they (I think dissertations) were purchased by certain academic institutions, but I don't recall if any of her books cites the titles. If anyone knows what kind of papers they are, please edit the subsection. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

middle initial

She apparently was Mary F. Daly (see the OCLC thesis record (with "F."), tentatively confirmed in the list of other works by putatively the same author, listing Mary Daly's well-known books). In the 1960s–1970s, the middle part seems to have disappeared, suggesting the simpler form was her preference for decades. Which way should it be in the lede and, if it should be the simpler, should the middle part be acknowledged anywhere? Nick Levinson (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gyn/Ecology

Did there not used to be a Wiki page for Gyn/Ecology. If it has been deleted I think that fact should be mentioned on this page.

Zimbazumba (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a redirect from Gyn/Ecology to Mary Daly. As far as I can tell, there has never been an article about the book. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Malik. Seems odd there has not. It is a pretty controversial book.

Zimbazumba (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a pretty important book. That article is something I hope to get around to writing one of these days, when I have a chance to re-read the book. Actually, considering the snail's pace at which I read nowadays, I hope somebody else writes the article before I get around to re-reading the book. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Overly-detailed summary?

Is it relevant to state in the summary that, "Daly allowed male students in her introductory class and privately tutored those who wanted to take advanced classes"? This seems like a strange detail to include in the summary.Gotophilk (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

propose re-adding to Views on Men

The recently deleted, re-added (as virtually reformatted), and redeleted passage is contested over sourcing and originality. I propose re-adding the passage to the article's Views on Men section, as the section's first paragraph. This is the passage and its footnotes (footnote numbers may vary and including minor new edits not affecting the edit summary reason for redeletion):

She argued against sexual equality,^[18] believing that women ought to govern men.^[19] She advocated a reversal of sociopolitical power between the sexes.^[20]

18. Daly, Mary, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1978 & 1990), pp. 384 & 375–376 (fnn. omitted) (prob. all content except New Intergalactic Introduction 1978 & prob. New Intergalactic Introduction 1990) (ISBN 0-8070-1413-3)) (New Intergalactic Introduction is separate from Introduction: The Metapatriarchal Journey of Exorcism and Ecstasy).

19. Daly, Mary, Gyn/Ecology, op. cit., pp. 15 & xxvi (p. xxvi in New Intergalactic Introduction (prob. 1990)).

20. Daly, Mary, Gyn/Ecology, op. cit., p. xxvi (New Intergalactic Introduction (prob. 1990)).

The sourcing is secondary and sufficient for the content which is therefore not original research.

Whether a source is secondary or primary is governed by WP:PSTS. While primary sources may be used, secondary sources are generally preferred.

Gyn/Ecology, a book by Mary Daly on radical feminism, is, as used here, not a statement of her personal experience but is based on many sources cited in the book. The book is secondary, including for the usage for this content.

If a source says "my friends and I created a women-run commune and it was great", that's an author's personal experience, and so that's a primary source, at least to that extent. But if instead the source says "you should create a women-run commune because it will be great" in an otherwise secondary source, that's not experiential but is theoretical and advocacy, which are consistent with source secondariness, and so that statement leaves the source secondary.

In a secondary source, an author may interpret the sources on which the author relies. There may be disagreements on those interpretation. But the fact that a secondary source interprets does not disturb whether Wikipedia may rely on that source. That very interpretiveness is often why we rely on secondary sources in Wikipedia.

Mary Daly was academically far more qualified than most people, holding two doctorates, her qualifications place her in a league with other academic authors, and her specialty was relevant to what she wrote that I paraphrased in this article.

Mary Daly's book, being secondary, does not need another secondary source to cite it. Since her book was cited in the above Wikipedia passage and supports what it was cited for, the research was not original.

Wikipedia does prefer conclusions from scientific studies to be reported in a secondary source in order for the conclusions to be reported in Wikipedia. Scientific studies have certain characteristics of their own that may make them primary sources. A scientific study is carried out by an investigator reporting their personal experience in carrying out an experiment or a set of observations, even though the investigator publishes the steps in the process. Two studies even with identical steps may yield contradictory conclusions, because of differences in the personal experiences of the investigators. The scientific findings are to be presented as nonadvocacy facts; e.g., a study may find that aspirin cures headaches but that's separate from a call to treat headaches with aspirin. And scientific studies are supposed to be replicable because of an agreement or view among scientists that validity of a conclusion requires allowing that other scientists may choose to attempt replication, and reporting results may require allowing for replication or its failure. However, replication is not always attempted before general scientific acceptance of conclusions already reached.

And science is not the only field of scholarship. Many other scholarly disciplines do not apply the scientific method, because they don't have to, in order to meet high scholarly standards. Mary Daly was a feminist ethicist and wrote in that field of scholarship. What I relied on was not, for example, a poll of Catholics; if I had, the poll's scienticity would be subject to examination, but her conclusions did not depend on polling, but on her study within feminist scholarship.

In addition, this article is on the subject of Mary Daly, the person. It may state her significant views that she has stated herself in sources she authored. In such a case, the source she authored may be either secondary or primary. Primary sources may be used only with care, but they may be used. However, what I used in this passage was a secondary source. It is no less secondary because she authored it. What I cited in her book for the above passage were no less secondary.

A further secondary source is not required to repeat what Mary Daly wrote in her secondary source, Gyn/Ecology.

In proposing re-adding the passage as presented above, I will consider objections and edits.

Nick Levinson (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC) (Corrected line breakage: 01:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

I will likely implement the above editing soon. In the meantime, I am reinviting discussion or editing about it. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS: The book is a secondary source when the author discusses the works of other authors. The book is a primary source when the author discusses her own theories, advocacies, and what not. How can an author be a secondary source for her own theories?

Using primary sources is sometimes acceptable if the primary source directly and explicitly supports what is being said. Per WP:OR:

"Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research"

So if you have quotes that directly and explicitly say "I argue against sexual equality," "I believe that women ought to govern men," and "I advocate the reversal of sociopolitical power between the sexes" we can use them. Do you have such quotes? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." (deboldfaced; and italic added). The author discussing her own theories and advocacies does not turn a secondary source primary. Theories and advocacies can be an author's own and still be secondary because they are not personal experiences and because they are based on primary sources on which the secondary source is based, as by its own footnoting. It is very common. For example, a doctor may write a book as a secondary source citing studies and therein advocate for patients to get treated even though the cited studies don't themselves so advocate, the author can because their understanding of the author's cited sources provides the scholarly authority for the author's advocacy, and the doctor's book remains secondary within WP:PSTS. As to Mary Daly's Gyn/Ecology, the cited passages are not discussing her personal experience but are theorizing and advocating based on the many sources that book cites. Since Gyn/Ecology is secondary, the standard for using primary sources in Wikipedia does not apply. I'll revert the latest deletion from the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said. The book is a secondary source where Daly evaluates and analyzes the work of other authors. But her own theories or advocacies can't be construed as second-hand accounts. How is this not obvious? Moreover, even of we assume that the book can be used as a secondary source, you still don't offer a solution for the problem that there's nothing in the book that directly and explicitly supports what you wrote. So I will revert your edit.

If it is so common, then a large majority of uninvolved editors should okay your use of the source. So please seek support on the appropriate board. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Her advocacies and theories do not have to be second-hand for the source to be secondary. Second-hand and secondary for a source are different concepts. WP:PSTS on secondary sourcing does not require second-handedness for theories and advocacies. The book we're discussing is at least one level removed from its author's personal experience, which is what second-handedness in WP:PSTS is about. Originating of theories and advocacies is consistent with a source stating them being secondary, because the author can base their theories and advocacies on the research represented by the secondary source. Many secondary sources in many fields appear to originate theories and advocacies, by basing them on the respective authors' understandings of the subjects of their books. An author can analyze the body of work that she presents and she can present her conclusions, and her conclusions can include theory and advocacy, with the source still being secondary. Even if the theories and advocacies are not second-hand, the source remains secondary.

I speculate that you disagree with the standards in WP:PSTS. If so, you may consider proposing an amendment on the talk page there. If you do not disagree with those standards, then you are asking for different standards for this article than apply to other Wikipedia articles.

We do not need to ask a board for permission to edit within Wikipedia's standards or seek large-majority voting, even on radical feminism.

Your request for material in the book directly and explicitly supporting the content I supplied appears to be based on the book being a primary source for the content, when it is secondary. As the book is a secondary source, the content is properly supported by the book. If you think paraphrasing can be better, please propose alternative paraphrasing or quoting. I will await such a proposal.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

propose to add the Feminism template

Mary Daly is best known, by far, for her work in feminism. Without the feminist work, she would hardly be known. The article emphasizes her feminist work. Readers interested enough in her to read the article about her would likely be interested in other articles in feminism. That doesn't mean they'd agree with her; not all feminists would have. But someone reading about her likely associates her with feminism. I therefore propose to add the Feminism template. I understand there was an objection to the aesthetics of the sidebar, so, instead, I propose the other template, to appear at the bottom of the page. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC) (Corrected title: 17:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC))

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

whether feminist or misandrist

(I titled and reformatted this post, as it appeared to have been intended to be a topic separate from the one to which it was appended. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

How is she a feminist when she doesn't argue equality among the sexes? Wouldn't that make her a misandrist? By definition a feminist fights for equality, not against it.JanderVK (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Feminism includes a range of views about empowering women, and includes radical feminism; Daly was a radical feminist. If you wish to describe her as a misandrist in this article, you'll need a source saying so. It is possible to have been both misandrist and feminist at the same time, so adding and sourcing one does not mean deleting the other. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)