Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 31lk45mnzx90 (talk | contribs) at 03:37, 16 March 2014 (→Violence against men categorization). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Jansen, Sharon L. (2011). "Reading Women's Worlds from Christine de Pizan to Doris Lessing: A Guide to Six Centuries of Women Writers Imagining Rooms of Their Own". Palgrave Macmillan.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Men's Issues This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Archives Archive 1

Valerie is more known for shooting

Valerie Solanas wrote 31 pages and shot Andy Warhol. It is clear that the latter one is more significant. --188.99.179.90 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• 31 pages? The copy I bought in 1981 was well over one hundred pages long. Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Editions vary, but, from what I've seen of some of them, they vary mostly because of other matter, generally introductions or prefaces, which are lengthy relative to the main text. Editions could also vary because of typesetting or layout.

For the original poster, if the comment is about weight to be given in the article for each part of her life, that's appropriate for the article about her, and probably not for this article.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

deleting ipl2-sourced content

I'm deleting the content sourced to ipl2 because ipl2 doesn't cite a source for anything in its SCUM Manifesto article, making the ipl2 article as a source (judging each ipl2 article as a separate source, as apparently intended by ipl2) tertiary; because if the content's information would otherwise be reportable it's because a good source exists for it and should be found and cited instead of ipl2; and because I contacted ipl2 on Sep. 18, 2011, asking for their source and, as of today, have not received a reply or seen their article updated to cite their source. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnote superscripts

Surely this article currently sports far too many footnote superscripts..? Can they be grouped together under one or two per paragraph? 213.246.119.51 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages specifies that we make clear what is supported by what source. To combine footnotes would therefore require adding text into footnotes to explain what is being supported by each referent in that footnote, which would make them longer and more complex. To reorganize the main text so that everything supported by one source is in one place (reducing the number of footnotes needed overall) would make the main text harder to follow. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is unreadable, completely broken by the far too many inline footnote markers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.170.113 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty tough. I'm not sure there is a way to avoid it though based on Misplaced Pages principals and procedure :( SarahStierch (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

single words quoted and then explained in the ref element

On the recent removal of quotation marks, I see your point. I was thinking about proposing to restore but with a single set of quotation marks (in light of a recent discussion elsewhere), but now I won't propose it. A minor point of agreement is that short phrases are not subject to U.S. Federal copyright and attribution is present anyway. However, a major reason for quoting rather than appearing to paraphrase is that controversial articles are more likely to be edited or discussed as if existing content is false or unsupported, and quotations are more resistant to such changes/charges than are paraphrases. This case is a good example, in that a claim was that Val had tried to distance herself from the manifesto after prison (years after publication); I'm not sure she ever did, and the passage in question seems to refute that claim, so quoting is helpful. Hopefully, if challenged, I'll remember that it was quoted and find the quotation in the article history if needed. An alternative for future consideration is to rephrase to produce a longer quoted phrase, even if brackets would be needed, the quoted longer statement both being real and appearing so. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What I sometimes do in these situations (where the claim is likely to be challenged) is put the quotation in a quote parameter in the citation. That way the quote is accessible, but the article doesn't turn into a quotefarm. Nice job on the article, by the way. Kaldari (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeframe

This article says the the SCUM Manifesto was written in 1967. However, The Guardian's bio says that she started writing it while she lived in Berkeley (presumably in 1959 or 1960). Clearly the text was published in 1967, but do we have any more information on when and where it was actually written? Kaldari (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not much or none. I'm planning to add the Guardian article, as that's an interesting point. It's possible some source said she was writing the manifesto in the Lower East Side, East Village, Greenwich Village, or Manhattan but without a pre-1967 date, and that wouldn't have been important enough for the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

50 cents

I deleted about the additional fifty cents on Manifesto sales, because that's not the information I have in two sources. I don't see my copy of the third source (Manifesto Destiny) (maybe I misplaced it but that's unusual), but, if someone wants me to soon, I can probably get it again from the library. However, it's unlikely I got it wrong from the third one and got it right from the first two. I gather she did charge the additional fifty cents for the meeting, but that's different. Nick Levinson (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I found the third source (I had it (Manifesto Destiny) on disk); it agrees on $1/$2, not $2.50. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. Strangely, Factory made: Warhol and the sixties says she sold it for 25 cents to women and a dollar for men. I'm fine with the current numbers though, as they seem to be the most commonly reported. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Smith or Winkiel in a 2d sentence

In the Description section, in the subsection As Parody and Satire, in the first paragraph, the first sentence is based on Laura Winkiel while the second sentence is still based on Smith. Does the citation that follows both reconcile the difference in names? If so, a clarification would help; otherwise (I think the likelier case), sourcing or correction would be helpful. And, unless the second sentence was also supposed to be changed to be based on Laura Winkiel, Smith's full name should be restored to that and the other in-body mention of her (both are in the same pararaph), since the body omits her first name and she'd be confused with Howard Smith, who's also cited in the body, which also means that every instance of "Smith" that silently refers to Howard will also need his first name (there are two instance for him, both in the SCUM as Literary Device subsection). Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC) (Corrected three minor grammatical errors including in heading: 04:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC))

Done, by editor Sonicyouth86. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

picture of cover

Is there an image for another edition of the Manifesto? The one being used has periods in "SCUM"and she rejected that as the publisher's misrepresentation. On the other hand, it has her portrait, and I don't know if any other edition has that. The edition I have, from 1967 and self-published, is just typewritten and by the time it fits into the image space it would just be blocks of gray and my copy is restricted under copyright to personal use so it can't be offered for publishing on Misplaced Pages. I didn't find another image but maybe my searching wasn't inspired enough. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have the 1968 Olympia Press edition, but it also uses "S.C.U.M.". I think the only one that doesn't is the AK Press edition, although it is quite new. Which would be better, the Olympia Press edition, which was the 1st professionally published edition, or the AK Press edition, since it's closer to Solanas's preferred title?

Also, how the heck did you get a copy of the self-published edition? Aren't those rare? Kaldari (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

On the last question, I emailed you.

Between the two you cite for covers, the AK edition sounds better, but Verso's is newer (2004) and I think it doesn't use periods either (at least not according to SCUM Manifesto#Further reading), but I vaguely recall that its cover has a starkly simple design, probably black and white. I'm not sure anyone lately made an interesting cover, but maybe that doesn't matter. As a general policy, Misplaced Pages could assume that many publishers of in-print titles would be interested in doing the scanning and the posting and live with the license terms from WMF. They may already have image files ready, given that someone has to do it for Amazon, Google Books, catalogues, websites, trade publicity, etc. Depending on what scanning costs you, it might be worth asking them.

Nick Levinson (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Too many quotes in the description section

The description section includes 22 sentences in a row (with one exception) that begin "According to...". This is terribly unreadable. Not every sentence has to be a quote. You could probably combine several of those sentences into generalized descriptions and move the quotations into the citations. Kaldari (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good readability point. I'll try something in about a week. Concern has been raised that attributions have to be provided, I think at the beginnings of statements, and moving quotations down could leave text denser, but let me see if I can aerate even that. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I did it. I hope this works. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely an improvement. At some point it might be nice to do a customary plot/summary section that is attributed to the manifesto itself. By only reading other people's reactions and interpretations, I still don't get a good idea of what the Manifesto actually says. Summarizing books and movies is one of the rare excepts to the "don't use primary sources" rule, so we should take advantage of it. Maybe I'll take a stab at expanding the section myself one of these days. Kaldari (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Great idea (summarizing), but I think I've been told by several editors we can't do that for the Manifesto or other works because it would be violative as OR or synthesis, so, first, I'd need to read that exception, second, I'd have to get over my hesitation to paraphrase an entire work that has attracted a lot of controversy in Misplaced Pages when the author believed another publisher, whose edits meseems were generally relatively minor (and I think article source author Sharon Jansen essentially agreed), did huge editing substantially altering the meaning, and, third, I've got to plan on having a lot of time when I'm now working on a wife selling (English custom) problem. Regardless of who produces a summary, expect controversy. Time or no, either of us may wind up monitoring and editing many times. I corrected another Misplaced Pages article citing the Manifesto not long ago and am checking more sourcing cited elsewhere. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm even more pessimistic about summarizing this. How to write a plot summary seems to apply only to fiction. I skimmed its talk page and didn't see a discussion about summarizing nonfiction. While many more source authors call the Manifesto a parody or satire rather than literal, the view is not universal, and summarizing the Manifesto under the authority of that essay implies a judgment that it is indeed not literal, and therefore fictional. The essay's Citations section doesn't say much more on point than that if we quote the original we need to cite the original, but I'm not sure it's authority to summarize a controversial original even if we support every word with a citation. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the guidelines are written for fiction, but the basic idea can apply to non-fiction as well. This may be more of a convention than a written guideline though. Unfortunately, there aren't a huge number of famous non-fiction books, but most of the ones I've looked at (that aren't stubs) have a Summary, Overview, or Contents section. I'm hoping to roughly follow the organization used in The Communist Manifesto which is probably our closest analog. Perhaps we could bring this up as an issue for discussion at Misplaced Pages:How to write a plot summary. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm working on getting a copy of the original Solanas text so I can make sure that we aren't quoting passages that have been altered. Perhaps you could help with this as well since you have the original text. Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I probably can't mail or upload a copy because of copyright and library restrictions, but you already have the information on how I got my copy and that likely will work for you. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

summary of the Manifesto, revisited

In adding to the summary of the manifesto in line with plot summaries in Misplaced Pages, this might help: "Solanas herself summarized the SCUM Manifesto as a two-part treatise. In her words: 'The first part of the Manifesto is an analysis of male psychology, and the second part is like, you know, what do to about it.'" "4. This summary of the SCUM Manifesto is taken from an interview with Solanas that appeared in the Village Voice on July 25, 1977. It is a revealing interview in which Solanas defends SCUM ...."<ref>Heller, Dana, ''Shooting Solanas: Radical Feminist History and the Technology of Failure'', in Hesford, Victoria, & Lisa Diedrich, eds., ''Feminist Time against Nation Time: Gender, Politics, and the Nation-State in an Age of Permanent War'' (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books (div. of Rowman & Littlefield), 2008 (ISBN 978-0-7391-1123-9)), p. 151 & n. 4 (contribution originally published in ''Feminist Studies'', vol. 27, no. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp. 167–189, per ''Feminist Time against Nation Time'', ''id.'', p. vii (''Acknowledgments'')) (author Heller prof. Eng. & dir. Humanities Institute & Grad. Pgm., Old Dominion Univ., & eds. asst. profs. women's studies, Stony Brook Univ., all per ''Feminist Time against Nation Time'', ''id.'', p. 209).</ref> The book does not seem to offer more summary organized as such, devoting much of its content to other matters related to Solanas and the Manifesto, such as deeper analysis and the film I Shot Andy Warhol. In other words, it has other content on the manifesto, but not organized as a summary. The Voice doesn't offer more; it says virtually the same thing: "The first part of the manifesto is an analysis of male psychology, and the second part is like, you know, what to do about it." <ref>''Valerie Solanas Interview'', in Smith, Howard, & Brian Van der Horst, ''Scenes'', ''The Village Voice'' (New York, N.Y.), vol. XXII, no. 30, Jul. 25, 1977, p. 32, col. 1 (reel 3 of 4 (Jul. – Sep. 1977) (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. Microfilms Intntl., microfilm 1977)).</ref> Nick Levinson (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Translations

I couldn't find any references to back up the existence of the following translations: Danish, Dutch, and Portuguese. So I removed them. If anyone can find sources for them existing, please re-add them. Kaldari (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Previously, two sources were given and deleted. I think there was discouragement earlier against specifying which language was supported by which citation, and so the citations were given together. This is why I remain a fan of overdetailing rather than underdetailing, when the middle is elusive. Thanks for the editing. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Weird, I looked at that source, but somehow missed the translations. Thanks for clearing that up! Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Editions

I thought it might be helpful for us to compile a full list of editions to put at the bottom of the article. Here's what I've got so far. Feel free to add to the list. Kaldari (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• SCUM Manifesto (1967) (English). Self-published, 21 pages.
• S.C.U.M. Manifesto (1968) (English). Preface by Maurice Girodias and essay by Paul Krassner. Olympia Press, 105 pages.
• SCUM Manifest (2010) (Danish). Translated by Ellen Boen, with a foreword by Sjón and afterword by Charlotte Jørgensen. C & K Publishing, 96 pages.
• SCUM-manifesti (2011) (Finnish). Translated by Suvi Auvinen, with foreward by Akuliina Saarikoski. Savukeidas, 71 pages.

Probably merge the Further Reading section and the References For the further Reading subsection into an editions section, since the latter is a better idea anyway. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Violence against men categorization

Advocating violence against men, and the author citing this text as the reason she shot a man seems to make this a no-brainer for Cat:VAM. Nathenson and Young use this term while discussing the SCUM manifesto. There seems to be some disagreement on the issue from user: Delicious Carbuncle though. Please provide some reasoning here so we can stop edit warring.--StvFetterly(Edits) 18:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is such a thing as a "Violence against men" category, I could see the rationale for including this article. However, it seems rather POINTY that we even have a "violence against men" category. Personally, I think it should be merged with the Violence or Domestic violence categories. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

But, we do have Category:Violence against women :-/ Sarah (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And we also have Category:Child abuse. Those are both well-established topics of numerous articles, whereas "violence against men" is not, so I don't see the need for a separate subcategory. Kaldari (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For example, should we create a "Violence against Germans" category and start adding all the articles about WWII? Neither "Violence against men" nor "Violence against Germans" are likely to be useful categories as neither are prominent topics in their own right. Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::Not saying that it should exist, just "sayin" that's all. I agree that it isn't established and is generally more WP:Fringe than anything else. (*grumbles something about men's rights article heydays*) Sarah (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The category "violence against men" should be applied to articles which are related to systemic acts of violence against men as a group. This is a book -- considered by many to be satirical or symbolic -- and not an act of violence. It may be helpful to review the other members of the category. As for the edit warring, I have been asking for the user who originally added the category to follow WP:BRD and make a case for inclusion here on the talk page with no success. You seem to have inserted yourself into this with the explicit purpose of continuing an edit war, not ending one. Per WP:BRD I am removing the category until there is consensus to include it. Please do not restore it or place anymore 3RR warnings on my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You really can't get much more obvious than the appropriateness of adding this cat, it's just blatantly needed and the category would be woefully incomplete without this article being included. In case people aren't fully aware of the topic SCUM stands for "Society of Cutting Up Men", the author called for "thrill seeking females" to "eliminate the male sex". Ok, so someone believes the work to be satirical, but the evidence strongly suggests otherwise and I'd question the neutrality of some of some of the authors in question who argue it is satirical. Nathenson and Young even go as far as using the actual phrase "violence against men". In addition to all the above we haven't even got round to Solanas' act of VAM either. Even had she not attempted to murder a man it wouldn't matter in the slightest as these categories are about topics, not acts. Your arguments appear to be based on the assumption that the category is titled "acts of violence against men", or "people who've committed violence against men", whereas calling for such violence can be just as notable as any act if not more so, particularly if your words attract attention, inspire others and become widely disseminated. And why do you wish to review the VAM category and not the VAW one too? Not that you're under any obligation to do so, but it seems extremely inconsistent to remove one of the strongest instances of such categorisation before any similar but far weaker ones in the VAW category.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's do this by consensus shall we? Sarah (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also object to A Modest Proposal being added to Category:Child abuse or Category: Cannibalism. It is not a single author who believes that the SCUM Manifesto is satire, it is many. Solanas herself has said that it was satire. I am not suggesting that other opinions be removed from this article, but I do think that adding categories such as "Hate speech" and "Violence against men" shows a lack of familiarity with the material being discussed here. I note that Shakehandsman also believes that the phrase "women and child first" is "violence against men". It is hard for me to see this as anything other than anti-feminist POV-pushing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Strike that last sentence please.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have struck the statement, in the interests of maintaining harmony. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Solanas did not say it was satire, as far as I've ever found. She said roughly that the word SCUM in the title was a literary device, but not that the whole text was. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Having read SCUM Manifesto myself, I can certainly vouch for the fact that it wasn't meant to be taken entirely seriously. Much of the book is obviously supposed to be humorous, but after she shot Warhol people just started assuming that it was some psychopathic rant a la Unabomber Manifesto. I've only found 2 people who claimed it was supposed to be taken seriously, and it seems evident that only one of the two actually read it. Anyway, I think the Modest Proposal analogy is pretty fitting, changing my vote to "weak oppose". Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I read it and I assume Ruby Rich, I think cited in the article as finding some literalness, read it, given the extent of her discussion in the source by Rich. I don't know who the third is. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't read satirically to me, a few phrases are quite strange but that's not satire or humour. Also, the VAW cat contains undeniable 100% hoaxes, see Hunting For Bambi for example. As for "women and children first", Misplaced Pages's VAM article gives it a significant mention in the history section per the events on the Titanic in particular and I was just adding appropriate categories per the content of the article, nothing to do with any "belief" whatsoever. --Shakehandsman (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, whether or not it's "satire", it definitely has a large amount of humor in it. The entire book is written in a general tone of snarkiness, and is actually rather funny in a Lenny Bruce sort of way, which is not at all what you would expect from the popular conception of the book. Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, if you are suggesting that the Violence against men could be classed as satire or parody, I agree. The Titanic references it contains might be appropriate for an article discussing sexual or gender discrimination, but it is simply ridiculous to suggest that the tradition of "women and children first" constitutes violence against men. Other than the domestic abuse, it is difficult not to see the article as a laughable coatrack for "men's rights" crusaders. The "see also" section is especially telling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Although probably most authors cited in the article lean toward the Manifesto being parody or satire, I don't think most of them reasoned it out in print and may have projected from the disturbance it brings out. From what I see of her work around the text over her lifetime, I think she probably meant it seriously and I think her shooting was (as is often the case) the result of combined motives, including the maleness of her targets, considering her post-shooting mention of the Manifesto so people would understand. Meanwhile, violence against men because of their gender and perpetrated by women is far rarer than that against women by men because of gender, but I'm not sure if that raises a notability issue. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree she meant for the book to be taken seriously, although perhaps not literally. 90% of the book is about various political and cultural issues and how they relate to gender. Only a few pages are actually about "eliminating the male sex". It's very difficult to tell if she is being facetious here, especially since she is clearly humorous and hyperbolic in other sections of the book. I suppose, like much of Solanas's life, it is a mystery that will never be solved. Kaldari (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Violence against men is not a parody, but is in fact a well established phenomenon. Arguing to the contrary illustrates a tremendous bias. Had one studied the notion of "Women and Children first" being an act of violence against men, one would know that this is in fact the case. It is a systemic devaluation of the lives of males, subjecting them to death on the basis of their gender, without regard to the individual, so that a female life could be spared. You wouldn't find this amusing if the same double standard were applied to whatever group or groups you identify with. The fact that you dismiss any argument that doesn't agree with your views as telling (of what I can only imagine), or a comical parody, further illustrates a clear bias. The fact that the woman who wrote this, also shot men, undoubtedly with their gender being the primary motive, speaks to the legitimacy of "Violence against Men" as a category, and this books place therein. The fact that you seem to be arguing that a female shooting a male specifically for being male doesn't constitute violence against men, is telling. This exact same concept applies to women and children first. It is saying that, should it serve a woman, men are obliged to die, and that this is preferable. Since it is a choice to send men to their deaths in both circumstances I fail to see how one is an act of violence and one is not. Violence by omission is violence none the less. We're not arguing women and children first though. We are arguing a book titled "Society for Cutting Up Men.", written by a radical feminist, who shot a man for being too male, belongs in a category about violence against men. Cainchild (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Vote for categorizing this article under "Violence against men"

• Neutral Weak oppose, although I still think the Violence against men cat should be up-merged (which I'll save for a future discussion). Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support, honestly can't understand how anyone can argue against this. Couldn't be any more obvious surely? People appear to have confused the more general debates about the category with the this specific issue.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - As I said above, it seems like a no brainer. If there's a violence against men category, this should be in it.--StvFetterly(Edits) 19:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that the category is stupid, frankly, but, this book also does fall into the realm of violence against men if the category has to exist right now, just as Valerie's article itself possibly could, but, anyone familiar enough with her life knows she was generally "violent" towards all gender, including herself. However, this isn't the place to discuss the category, that's what the category talk page is for. ;) Changing my vote based on the concept of satire and the above argument. Sarah (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I was unsure whether to add Solanas or her victim to the cat and therefore to try to be conservative I did the later. On reflection and on hearing the views of others I've probably got this the wrong way round and should have been bolder and gone with the former.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd favor adding the category here over adding it to her biography. There's a fair amount of debate about Solanas's motives for shooting Warhol, but few people think she actually shot him because he was male. Solanas's own explanation, which is quite dubious, is that Warhol was part of some conspiracy (along with Maurice Girodias) to control her creative work. Most people, however, believe it was because Solanas was a paranoid schizophrenic and/or wanted to be famous. See the interviews with Margo Feiden for example. Besides, if you wanted to shoot someone as a symbolic example of the male gender, I don't think you would choose the rather androgynous Andy Warhol. Perhaps her bio should go in the "Violence against androgyny" category :) Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral as I could argue either way in light of Misplaced Pages's tradition of tending to balance genders (sometimes). Nick Levinson (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. As someone already pointed out elsewhere, adding the category makes as much sense as adding the category Cannibalism to A Modest Proposal. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Let's save the cat for articles which are actually about violence against men. KillerChihuahua 00:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is ridiculous. The book title itself lends proof of the category change needing to happen. This is one of the defining articles in our society stating that it is not only acceptable, but preferable for women to commit acts of violence against men. The only individuals who have supported the notion that this is satirical are also persons who support the exact agenda the book would support if it weren't satire. This is like saying she shot Warhol purely as an act of satire, and not sue to any of her gender specific views. Cainchild (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support What, do you think she attempted murder as satire? She's clearly completely insane and completely sincere, based on her later actions and later statements. She said it's serious, carried out the actions she suggested, and there is nothing in the text to suggest it's satire. Violence against women is a hate crime against women. Clearly violence against men is a hate crime against men. I think the idea of a category for violence against women is stupid, but if we have it we also need one for men.99.6.157.136 (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you think that when Solanas wrote "Up Your Ass", the play that may have been the source of her dispute with Warhol, she thought she was writing actual events, complete with stage directions? An author's words are not the author. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"there is nothing in the text to suggest it's satire". I think this proves you haven't read the book. The entire text is completely over-the-top and offensively humorous. Here are a few random excerpts to give you an idea of the book's tone:

"The male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He'll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity."

"The sick, irrational men, those who attempt to defend themselves against their disgustingness, when they see SCUM barreling down on them, will cling in terror to Big Mama with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Boobies won't protect them against SCUM; Big Mama will be clinging to Big Daddy, who will be in the corner shitting in his forceful, dynamic pants."

The book reads more like a Lenny Bruce routine than a serious declaration to commit gendercide. Kaldari (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with this book being a part of the category 'Violence against men'. Concerning the issue of the writers shooting of Warhol, that was entirely for personal reasons, not for his gender, and is not an example of violence against men. If Warhol had been female and turned down her script, it is likely the events would have occurred as they did. Please don't re-add this article to the category without referring to the Talk page --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Gray mass of text in the Reception_and_criticism section

The paragraph section of WP:BETTER States that Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus.

And the paragraph section of WP:BODY (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Layout) warns that overly long paragraphs can become hard to read.

I bring this up because upon coming to the Reception_and_criticism section of this article I was hit with an overwhelming TL;DR urge that I'm going to have to power thou. I don't know enough about the topic to edit it (hence why im reading it) so I'll leave the edits to someone with more experience.

Kyleshome (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Nick wrote that section a while back. Perhaps it could be broken up into some subtopics or organized in some fashion. Kaldari (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the mentions regarding utopianism could start it off, and then it could proceed to be broken into sections about gendered analysis - the reception regarding her treatment/opinion of men and treatment/opinion of women. Then proceed to continue with the other sections. Thoughts? Sarah (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am contesting the neutrality/ Impartiality of this article and its POV.

This article willfully refuses to provide reference to a number of strong and valid criticisms of the SCUM manifesto. It also deliberately evades a number of topics classically brought up with this book, and seeks to shade all impartial criticisms against it's philosophies as being the result of a diseased mind, rather than legitimate contentions that disagree with the subject matter. There is also a drastic lack of information as to the other, even more extreme works, that have emerged as a result of the publishing of the SCUM manifesto. It also fails, deliberately, to site the numerous criticisms of the position of critics who have claims that the book was satire. Even the tags and categorization of this page illustrate a massive bias based on the POV of one of its authors.

Cainchild (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This article has had many contributors - which "one of its authors" do you mean? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You somehow managed to list about a dozen "problems" without providing a single specific example. I would love to add all of that information to the article if you have any citations to offer. Kaldari (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally. I know a lot of us, who are interested in Solanas' work and the influence it, would love to learn more about the content you are referring too in regards to criticisms as satire. Any help that can allow us to further the quality of this article would be great. I disagree about the POV issues, but, perhaps something is missing for me regarding that! Sarah (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, pretty much. I may be one of the authors (or editors) you mean. I did an organized search for a variety of materials and would like to have seen more of what you describe, but didn't find it. Possibly, that's because we generally can't cite blogs and other weak sources, so I didn't look for those. But if you're thinking of sources that meet Misplaced Pages's standards, please post them.

Under Misplaced Pages's standards, I can write my own analysis, but not in Misplaced Pages. Challengeable content generally must be sourced. Perhaps no one has published what you're thinking of.

I'm interested in knowing of other manifestoes inspired by hers; they probably existed but I don't know of one.

POV is banned only from the article. Editors and subjects can have POVs. What matters is the resulting article. So, if the subject is biased, the article is supposed to reflect that, encyclopedically, while including criticism, as this one does, all balanced for due weight.

I'm not clear which tags or categories, or absences thereof except one (on violence against men), you're contesting in your opening post. If you can be more specific, that would help.

Be careful about accusing. Perhaps many of us with the best of intentions simply missed what you've found in your research. We look forward to your reporting.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

While I do not necessarily agree that the authors of this article deliberately/willfully exclude strong and valid criticisms of the SCUM Manifesto here, I do agree that there aren't any real criticisms of the book in this reception/criticism section. All I see are content descriptions of the book from various published reviews without anyone challenging (criticizing) its substance. Surely there exists some legitimate critical reviews objecting to the controversial and radical content of this publication?

(The last post above was by RushRhees (talk) on December 30, 2013, at 11:17 p.m. & 11:28 p.m. U.T.C. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC))

I think the main reason there is a lack of serious criticism of SCUM Manifesto is due to the work's satirical nature. Yes, Solanas makes some serious points, but her proposed solutions are obviously ridiculous and over the top. Anyone who responds to her with serious criticism is missing the joke. Unfortunately, this article completely fails to convey Solanas's tone which falls somewhere in between Jello Biafra and Jon Stewart. Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please supply sourcing. As explained above, I looked for that kind of content and didn't find more than what is in the article. A couple of other editors also solicited sourcing approximately in support of what you (RushRhees) requested, in response to the opening post. It hasn't come forth yet, but there's practically no time limit, so if you find sourcing, please add it or post about it here. If the desire is to find sourcing that specifically says something like "the manifesto was terrible" or that "it corrupted people's morals", there's no objection to that, provided it's sourced, but it may be that the authors of sources we found tended to be more specific about why they had the reactions they had, and that's often considered to be better writing. And it may be that lots of blogs and forum posts say what you want reported, but those are not generally considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages.

I'm not convinced that Solanas meant it as satire. Most jokesters don't mantain most jokes for many consecutive years, but she promoted the Manifesto for years, I think decades. I don't think she planned a committee beyond the one political meeting or organized either small-arms or bazooka practice, but lots of people have planned launches of rockets to Mars without being satirical but also without buying even one gallon of gasoline. If there's a source about tone that isn't in the article now, I don't remember seeing one. It's probably a widely-held view or probably was at the time of publication and early fame, but it may never have made its way into sources we can cite. Good luck toward finding one.

Nick Levinson (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So when Solanas suggests that "SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: 'I am a turd, a lowly abject turd,'" you believe that she is completely serious and not trying to be satirical? Obviously, our opinions don't count for much as far as the article is concerned, but I don't think anyone would have ever taken SCUM Manifesto for anything other than political satire except for the fact that Solanas tried to kill Andy Warhol. Kaldari (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference is between how a reader will understand it, since the reader will read it in a context with which the reader is familiar, and how the author intended it, since the author authored it in the context with which she was familiar. Perhaps she meant none of it, but there isn't much evidence of that possibility. I think you previously came up with some fragments that seem satirical (I forget where you quoted them but probably it was on a talk page, maybe this one), but if her intent is under examination then probably evidence from her but outside of the Manifesto is what's needed. Perhaps you can collect all of these fragments and publish an off-Wikimedia article giving an analysis such as you suggest and then, within COI policy, propose adding that content into this article. We've cited some secondary-source analyses that together have mixed views on whether the Manifesto was satirical; it's certainly not unanimous. If some men were frightened of her, and probably some were (some were of Andrea Dworkin who, at least for a long time, did not publicly propose killing men as a class except for rapists), those men, at least, could hardly think Solanas was merely satirizing, although, of course, the men could have been afraid only in error. I'm not sure we should treat the shooting as an exception since it wasn't a secret that she did it, she more or less said so publicly at the time, she or Laura Winkiel (cited in the Manifesto article) referred people to the Manifesto for an understanding, and Winkiel argued for connecting the shooting to the Manifesto, although the referring by Winkiel and the argument were approximately two to three decades later; so we've never had much of a period of time in which her work was well known but the possibility of a connection to the shooting was not known (as might be the case if she had done it without the police figuring out whodunit). And, while the Manifesto was known to a fairly substantial cross-section of feminists and nonfeminists, it held a particular appeal for radical feminists and probably quite a few of them did take it seriously (cf. Cell 16), albeit without planning the most notorious of the specific actions called for in it. So a view that it was satirical was not unanimous and the view that it was serious was not fringe. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think your overall assessment is pretty accurate regarding the sources. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read it now, but I read a pretty convincing argument that the Warhol shooting had little or nothing to do with SCUM Manifesto, except that both of them were connected to Solanas's obsession with becoming a famous writer. In particular, if Solanas wanted to start a revolution against the patriarchy, shooting the relatively shy and androgynous Warhol would have been the least sensible place to start. Of course, people read into SCUM Manifesto what they want to, and I'm sure Solanas would be pleased as punch if 99% of the world took SCUM Manifesto to be dead serious. Personally though, I think she was far more interested in attacking her perceived "persecutors" and being recognized as a writer than starting a revolution. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You might be referring to the Margo Feiden story about Solanas trying to get her play produced, which Solanas apparently thought was likelier if she shot Warhol, which she was on her way to do, according to a nondefinitive account. Whatever her motive, whether Warhol was the one who if shot would be the best choice for starting a revolution may be a function of her knowing him and his accessibility, rather than a matter of going through a list. Her intended way of contributing to what the Manifesto called for may have been by writing, and there's no conflict between being a revolutionary and being a writer. And she does seem later to have gone off on a tangent in a way that undermined her credibility, in a Village Voice interview, but not all people with ambitious aspirations act consistently in ways that achieve those aspirations, even though they aspire as before; maybe the barriers were too tough (which is usually a good thing and her particular revolution was not the best idea ever heard). But her points were read and maybe in the radical feminist movement that was the more important achievement. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Friedan opposing Manifesto in feminism

I restored to the lead that Friedan opposed the Manifesto in feminism, because that is based on the article's body, in which the subsection Women and Shooting says "Friedan opposed the Manifesto as bad for the feminist movement and NOW", with a source, which included a page, where it says this: "Ti-Grace Atkinson, Friedan's colleague and the president of the New York chapter of Friedan's NOW, embraced Solanas as a heroine of the movement. But Friedan herself was not at all sympathetic to Solanas's plight. When Flo Kennedy, a black civil rights lawyer and prominent NOW member, agreed to be Solanas's attorney in the trial, Friedan grew irate. She cared deeply about maintaining the movement's public image as respectable and legitimate and feared that this militant, 'man-hating' stance would taint the public's perception of feminism—and of NOW. To Friedan, Solanas's action was worse than criminal; it was bad publicity." Note 2 is not relevant. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how we get "Betty Friedan opposing the Manifesto in feminism" from that. I couldn't find a source anywhere in which Friedan actually talks about the manifesto, rather than Solanas. Our current wording makes it sound like Friedan opposed the manifesto specifically, which we don't have any evidence of. Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What Friedan knew about regarding the stance was the Manifesto, so that was what she was responding to. The shooting would have conveyed nothing about it except insofar as Solanas referred the public to the Manifesto for her reasoning or cause. In "It Changed My Lifer" (pbk., 1998), p. 138, Friedan wrote, "n 1968 a woman named Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol in the guts, though she aimed lower, and was hailed as a 'heroine' of the feminist movement by Ti-Grace Atkinson, then president of New York NOW, who also smuggled her 'SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto' out of the mental hospital where Solanas was confined. No action of the board of New York NOW, of national NOW, no policy ever voted by the members advocated the shooting of men in the balls, the elimination of men as proposed by that SCUM Manifesto!" While Friedan also effectively opposed Solanas, and that overlaps, that's a separate matter. I've added the Friedan citation to the article for the statement (it was already earlier in the article). Nick Levinson (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC) (Corrected missing opening quotation mark: 15:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC))

Our wording is still problematic. For example, why is this the only opinion from the entire Influence section that we mention in the lead? Also, we should make it clear that she was speaking in relation to NOW, not all of feminism. Unless a more balanced overview of opinions can be presented in the lead, this one opinion seems out of place there. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If more should be added to the lead from other sources, go ahead; I think Friedan is probably archetypical because of her leadership prominence (both organizationally and as a high-selling author), her effectively being a spokesperson for the entire movement to the press (unless someone sought out a radical or contrary view) (so was Gloria Steinem but I don't remember her addressing the Manifesto), Friedan's clarity on this point, her disagreement with (criticism of) the Manifesto (the disagreement/criticism would have been a mainstream view, while agreement would have been radical and minority), and that she published her view in one of her own books, probably somewhat contemporaneously, but specifically decades later and therefore as still at least somewhat important; whereas I don't think she addressed Cell 16 by name. And, as I read the cited Sisterhood, Interrupted source, Friedan was concerned about the effect not only on NOW but on the movement as a whole (she probably saw NOW as so much the leading organization in the movement that the organization and the movement substantially interacted, so that, to her, what was outwardly bad for one was probably bad for the other). The lead is rather concise and thus selective and the lead's Friedan statement balances the statement of the Manifesto as influencing feminism, but feel free to add other commentators to it. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried rewriting and expanding this part of the lead to give a bit more context. Kaldari (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is fine. Responding to the earlier version of your last post: Notoriety is probably usually seen as 'infamy' but often is just 'fame' and influentiality is neutral; perhaps notoriety was a bad choice and well-known would have been better. The lead didn't go into depth but where to draw the line is a judgment call. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

critic, curator, relationship, work, and sourcing

I think "attempted to murder Andy Warhol (with whom she had a relationship and done creative work together) and art critic and curator Mario Amaya by shooting them at Warhol's studio" is correct (other than that I don't remember the critic's name and whether he was also a curator and maybe those parts are true, too) but it was not supported by the source at that location in the article and I don't recall what source or sources support it, so I'm marking it as needing a citation to avoid confusion with the parts of the sentence that are sourced. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

SPLC material

The SCUM manifesto was mentioned in the SPLC intelligence reports on hate. The article is the voice of the SPLC not Goldwag, although authored by him. The issue has been discussed on RSN . The material should be replaced. CSDarrow (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC did not say ' that "Solanas continues to be much-read and quoted in some feminist circles" that deny they advocate cutting up men "unless they deserve it"'. The SPLC said "Solanas continues to be much-read and quoted in some feminist circles." and then quoted a blog tag-line. You're falsely attributing the statement that the feminist circles in which the manifesto is read approving of cutting up men to the SPLC here. Furthermore the RSN discussion only seems to say that this material is inclusable in articles when attributed to the SPLC. It doesn't address the appropriacy of its inclusion here. The SPLC's opinion on the SCUM manifesto seems irrelevant and including it at such length strikes me as undue weight. Who cares what they think about it or about Solanas? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not wishing to get into an edit war, but the SPLC is considered a highly respected source used by both Academics and Law enforcement. The opinion of the SPLC is of note on this matter, although you may not, others do care what they think. Misplaced Pages includes all significant views and I'd say this view is significant. All sources should be looked at on a case by case basis, I see nothing disqualifying this one. The opinions expressed by uninvolved editors in RSN are unanimously that attributed articles are speaking for the SPLC, unless indicated otherwise. CSDarrow (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC is certainly a reliable source as far as I'm concerned. That has nothing to do with why I think that the material you added should not be included in this article. First of all you seriously misrepresented what that source says. Secondly, the source you cited the passage to mentions the SCUM manifesto only tangentially as part of making some other point, which makes me think that including their tangential opinion is giving undue weight to it in the context of this article. Do you not see how you misrepresented what the source said? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sure we can work on the wording. CSDarrow (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The wording is the less important of the issues. The fact is that in the larger scheme of things no one cares what the SPLC has to say about the SCUM manifesto if they're just using it as a minor example in one paragraph of an article about something else entirely. Why don't we talk about the undue weight issue first and worry about the wording later if there's any consensus to include the SPLC's opinion here. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. An opinion is an opinion. CSDarrow (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's wait and see what others think, then. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, in the mean time I'll mull this one over. CSDarrow (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What SPLC said for itself would certainly be worthy of weight but it offers very limited opinion of its own or Goldwag's about the Manifesto or Solanas. SPLC cites RadFem Hub but that source does not seem to be worthy of weight given that much weightier sources are available and cited; I didn't dig deeply into Google results but Google News had nothing and EbscoHost (one library gets 30 of its databases) had nothing, nor did JStor. SPLC also received a letter but SPLC didn't endorse the letter as its own view, and the blog posts by other commenters on the SPLC page are no more usable here than the letter is. The Feminazis group also does not seem deserving of weight, although I did not dig as deeply, not wanting to have to trace everything that would probably be other than about the group, but it's not in Misplaced Pages. What SPLC says for itself is this: "Solanas was the undeniably disturbed woman who shot Andy Warhol in 1968. 'Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women,' her manifesto began, 'there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.' "SCUM stands for 'Society for Cutting Up Men,' and it is true that Solanas continues to be much-read and quoted in some feminist circles." In addition, Goldwag asked someone what they thought of the Manifesto; the asking is not in itself reportable in Misplaced Pages and the reply was not clearly used by SPLC to make its own point and does not have due weight for reporting in Misplaced Pages. The parts about Solanas being a woman, the shooting, and the acronym are better covered already and the SPLC statements on those add nothing nontrivial. The quotation is not useful since a quotation is already in the Misplaced Pages article, one that's more accurate relative to her manuscript. That leaves two parts of what SPLC said as probably reportable in Misplaced Pages: that in Goldwag's or SPLC's view Solanas was "undeniably disturbed" and that, in Goldwag's or SPLC's view, "Solanas continues to be much-read and quoted in some feminist circles." I note that while "disturbed" might well have been meant in a psychological sense it certainly didn't have to be; if someone bonks me on the head from behind and I turn around to see who did it that's because I was "undeniably disturbed" by said bonking and bonker. Further, I don't think the SPLC statement needs its own paragraph or that the two parts should be together just because they came from one source. One part should go into the Solanas article, if it's not there now; and I should take a look shortly. The other should be included within an existng paragraph in this article, so I did. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the Valerie Solanas article and I changed my mind. The SPLC statement is too thin on point to add anything since psychiatric issues are already discussed there in more depth and Goldwag's statement adds nothing (not even for an imprimatur) for either meaning of "disturbed". Nick Levinson (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What you added just now is fine with me. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the SPLC intelligence report was written by Goldwag who is a journalist and is not employed by the SPLC. Therefore, CSDarrow's claim that it is the voice of SPLC is in error. Goldwag does not speak for the SPLC in any way, regardless of what CSDarrow or anyone else thinks. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I support Nick's neutrally worded addition. CSDarrow's version is blatant anti-feminist POV pushing (as well as misrepresentation of the sources). Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to determine Goldwag's relationship with SPLC. I doubt he's just someone who started a blog as if SPLC's was a blogging website open to virtually anyone. While bottom-of-page posts are probably by almost anyone, his stuff appears in the upper part, so it's likelier SPLC thought about his work and decided that there was more compatibility than for bottom-of-page posters. I tried to research the connection through Google and Goldwag's website (hosted at WordPress), I may well have missed something, I didn't check library databases or newspapers, and I limited my research to a quick search, but I couldn't establish more than what I can see at the SPLC website, which does not offer a biography of him and does not list him among Senior Program Staff. So his status seems to be in between: probably not a staffer but probably not just anyone in SPLC's eyes. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Men's Issues articles
• Unknown-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• C-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• Mid-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles