Talk:Adrienne Rich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mistakes

This article contains numerous errors- most shockingly the sex of the author. The original correct article that it appears the text was taken from can be found here: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/rich/bio.htm . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.226.37 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Which date of birth is correct? GregorB 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed '19th' to '16th' and removed the contradiction tag, as all sources seem to agree that his date of birth was the 16th.--Apeloverage 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not his -- her. Yksin 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Our Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/English4994
Our group has come up with the following plan to edit and improve this Wikipedia page for Adrienne Rich. We are hoping to better organize this page as well as include information on Rich's Childhood, early life, family, later life, activism, careeer, awards, her works, and insight into who Rich is, and how that person came to be.

Adrienne Rich updated Wikipedia page plan:

1. Biography

1.1 - Early Life
1.2 - Family Life
1.3 - Later Life
1.3 - Sexuality

2. Career

2.1 - Activism
2.2 - Awards
2.3 - Works

3. References —Preceding unsigned comment added by MM English4994 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts:

• 1. I would suggest that the information on her "coming out" be fused into a category on feminism/sexuality rather than family life, which should not exist outside of the biography section to avoid redundency. Also keep in mind that her notability is linked to her poems, essays and feminism, not her status as a daughter, mother, etc.
  2. I think you have the career a bit backwards; should not her works come first, then her awards, then the activism which she would not otherwise have been able to aptly promote without the attention drawn by the first two.
  3. I am not sure whwat a "Genres" section would include, but perhaps a "Literary Criticism" or "Influence on Literature" section would be more in tune with something on an article about a poet and essayist.
  4. Don't forget a criticism section for essayists and literary critics who did not agree with her. These help bring balance to the page and help avoid POV issues. Mrathel (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure that "Insight into Adrienne Rich as a person" can be done with out WP:OR.Mrathel (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I like Mrathel's suggestions. I, too, think family life could fall under biography. I like the idea of works, awards, activism. I'm not so sure they're so easily separated in the case of a writer/activist like Rich, but paying attention to their interdependency in her career will be important here. Let's see how that develops. In genres, maybe you were hoping to reveal that she wrote poetry, essays, etc.? And I like the idea of a "criticism" or "reception" section. Perhaps it's something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_austen#Reception? Do pay attention to WP:OR.

AEG English4994 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)AEG English 4994

The article looks much better with the new sections. Another quick edit that might be useful: use the opening lead to describe more about the subject; it can be restated in detail later in the article, but the first couple of lines should give generic information that tells information like major achievements, basic genres, and an overview of her career. 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

citation issues/ non-wiki analysis/ POV

In the recent edits to this page are a few issues that I have attempted to address by tagging areas that need to be cited and removing language that can not be verified. Most of the citations can be made rather easily and are not an issue, but some of them deal with wp:or and WP:POV and will likely need to be amended. Encyclopedic articles are different from critical essays in that any statement on the page must be able to be verified. If one is to use the word "powerful" to desribe poetry in a WP article, it must be cited as a statement from a non-trivial source. Also, words like "groundbreaking" present a problem by adding a POV to the text. Even if a notable critic suggests that a work is groundbreaking, the article itself can not state this because that is not something that can be proven true. I also removed the second half of the following statement:

The award-winning volume An Atlas of the Difficult World (1991) and Dark Fields of the Republic (1995) in particular map out discursive spaces engaging private and public histories, and offer powerful examples of ethically engaged, socially committed lyric poetry.

While the first part can be proven to some extent, there is no way that one can state that poetry is "ethically engaged" or "socially committed" without suggestins a point of view regarding the works. If any help is needed with the references, please let me know and I would be happy to assist in getting the {{fact}} tags removed. Mrathel (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Adrienne Rich until her death, so acclaiming her as one of the "most widely read and influential poets of the century" seems absurd. I'm sure she had her cult following, but the opening paragraph seems way over-inflated. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Because you haven't heard of her this means she must only be a cult poet. The line is referenced. Span (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Anti-war, not Anti-Vietnam

The article says "Anti-Vietnam" where the intended meaning is "Anti-war in Vietnam" or "anti-U.S. military intervention in Vietnam", or the like. The present wording represents a point of view, namely, that those who opposed the war were against the people of Vietnam. Would like someone to step up and make a deft revision to this passage, eliminating POV, I will make a first try at it, if no one else does. Publius3 (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Publius3

Sure. Span (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote from The Transsexual Empire

I restored the text that Span removed, without the last sentence that might be problematic. I'm not sure I understand what is "out of context" about the quote itself. (The context is the book, which is cited.) Presumably Rich's anti-transgender activism is no more or less out-of-context than her anti-war activism? SparsityProblem (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section for several reasons.

"Janice Raymond cited Rich in the acknowledgments section of her 1979 book The Transsexual Empire, writing "Adrienne Rich has been a very special friend and critic. She has read the manuscript through all its stages and provided resources, creative criticism, and constant encouragement." In the chapter "Sappho by Surgery" of The Transsexual Empire, Raymond cites a conversation with Rich in which Rich described trans women as "men who have given up the supposed ultimate possession of manhood in a patriarchal society by self-castration".

This seems to be mostly concerned with telling us about Raymond (see WP:COAT). Rich had many friends. "Rich described trans women as 'men who have given up the supposed ultimate possession of manhood in a patriarchal society by self-castration'". To insert a single line on the impact of the transgender in feminism gives us no context for the discussion. Does it help the reader understand Rich's work? It doesn't tell us why, or what informed her view or whether it was an off hand comment in conversation or a thought through political position. It seems like an enormous and complex subject, not served by a soundbite.Span (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the inclusion gives undue weight to one conversation, cited in one publication. Especially if supposedly documenting "anti-transsexual activism". If including a mention it should come from a context that is about Rich herself, and it should be given weight in accordance with how other sources describe her involvement with the issue of transsexualism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

New section on themes?

I wonder what other people think about adding a section on some of the themes in Rich's poetry, for instance women's history, silence, war and colonialism, language itself. Some essays she published such as "When We Dead Awaken" comment on her themes directly. Although the current biographical sections include some information about her themes and how they changed over time, I think a new section might be valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzlibelslander (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism, needs rewrite

This article needs to be completely rewritten because of blatant plagiarism and copyright violations. It is violating the copyright of a book from Oxford UP, a portion of which can be found at http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/rich/bio.htm (posted above, also). 68.170.206.0 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)A passerby

Thanks passerby. Noted. I'm interested in this poet, so I may do it myself; meantime I've made note of the problem for the Biography Wikiproject. Yksin 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This article became really good, whoever added to it2602:30A:2C52:C170:F5F7:694B:1A00:454F (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Adrienne Rich/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

From the talk page, it appears that the article as it exists is copying from a bio on another website, so it will probably need to be rewritten. Yksin 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with Alfred Conrad

I think these two sentences on Rich's marriage are a bit odd in the impression they give:

"Increasingly militant, Rich hosted anti-war and Black Panther fundraising parties at their apartment; tensions began to split the marriage, Conrad fearing that his wife had lost her mind.[9] The couple separated in mid-1970 and shortly afterward, in October, Conrad drove into the woods and shot himself.[9][13]"

The second sentence, I think, is suitably brief and neutral, but I think the first implies over-strongly that Rich's politics were the primary or sole source of conflict in the marriage. The cited source says the following:

"Initially, Rich's husband supported her growing activism, and joined her in hosting anti-Vietnam and Black Panther fundraising parties at their apartment. However, he quickly became exasperated: "She was becoming a very pronounced, very militant feminist," says Hayden Carruth. "I don't know what went on between them, except that Alf came to me and complained bitterly that Adrienne had lost her mind." By the summer of 1970, they had reached breaking point and with both parties indulging in affairs - at this stage, in Adrienne's case, still of a heterosexual nature - she left, moving into a small apartment nearby.

After months of upheaval, Alfred Conrad left in October 1970 for what he told his children would be a brief trip. When he failed to return, Adrienne became concerned: "She called and asked me to get hold of Alf," says Carruth, who still lived close to the Rich family summer house in Vermont. "She said he had taken off, possibly to Vermont. I drove to their place and couldn't find him, so I left a note on the door. The next day the cops called and asked me to come and help identify his body. Immediately after that I called and told her. She wasn't unprepared. Alf was going to a psychiatrist at the time and one reason he came up to Vermont was that he couldn't get hold of his psychiatrist in New York. It was very complicated. I think that temperamental differences had something to do with it. I think Alf was a disappointed person, who, as Adrienne became more celebrated, became more depressed."

I have also been reading this article on Rich's life, which says the following:

"In the middle of all this is the enigma of Alfred Conrad. From these letters we learn only certain things about him, such as that he shared his wife’s politics and attended protests and leftist talks with and without her. Sometimes he even seemed to be ahead of her radicalism. He proposed, for instance, that the couple stop paying taxes on account of the unconstitutionality of the war in Vietnam. He was a native of Brooklyn, who was born Alfred Cohen but later changed his name to Conrad, and became a man of what you could call a kind of solid conventional success: He earned all three of his degrees at Harvard. His academic work bore the proof of his leftist beliefs; he co-authored a celebrated paper on the economics of slavery in the antebellum South. And once he became a full professor at City College, he often got involved in conflicts with the administration.

[...] There were clearly infidelities in Rich’s marriage—some of them her own—but throughout the 1960s Rich gave no hint of wanting to leave. Alfred Conrad was in fact quite intricately associated with the SEEK program that had instilled new energy in Rich. In April 1969, funding for SEEK was under threat and students occupied a campus of the college. Conrad was one of the few professors students spoke to and respected. “He is deeply impressed with [the students’] maturity and realism,” Rich proudly reported to Carruth. His colleagues vilified him for joining with the students, but he stood with them, anyway.

[...] Rich wrote to Carruth that she could offer no “tidy explanations” but that she was separating from Conrad. “Some of it is uniquely peculiar to Alf’s and my very complicated relationship, and to who we each were long before we knew each other.”

Conrad spiraled out from this rapidly. Rich wrote to Carruth that he needed the separation just as much as she but “finds it almost impossible to admit to this, as if it implied some kind of failure.” Carruth, flabbergasted by the sudden change, wrote hectoring letters back, telling Rich he worried she was moving from her “proper center.” “This is not something I am doing to or against Alf or out of vindictive anger,” she replied. Nor, she said at the end of July 1970, was she contemplating divorce. She had no plans to live with someone else. She would get herself a studio apartment.

Even after moving out, Rich continued to spend some time with Conrad and her children. “Alf & I talking a lot, in the car on leaf-strewn roads, or by the stove evenings,” she wrote to Carruth as late as the fourth of October. But by the thirteenth she’d changed her mind again: “I feel Alf is in bad trouble—I can’t help him anymore & I am trying at best not to provide damaging occasions for him—but he needs friendship.” The same day she wrote the letter, Conrad wrote a check for the gun."

I think that the original phrasing slightly misrepresents the emphasis of the cited source, and is very different in implication from Michelle Dean's characterization. I also think that Wikipedia is probably not the place to be making guesses as to the causes of a marriage's end? The event of their separation and Conrad's suicide seem relevant, but not all of these detailed circumstances. But I'm struggling to compose a new, more neutral two-sentence description of this period in Rich's life.

Oulfis (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue and bringing in those sources! All I know about this is from what you've just quoted, but I think you're right that it doesn't make sense to paint her radicalism as the cause of the end of the marriage and her husband's suicide without better sourcing. I suggest taking the line out about her being "out of her mind" since it's just one person's memory. How would you feel about the following:

"Increasingly militant, Rich and Conrad hosted anti-war and Black Panther fundraising parties at their apartment; however, rising tensions began to split the marriage, and Rich moved out in mid-1970, getting herself a small studio apartment nearby. Shortly afterward, in October, Conrad drove into the woods and shot himself.[9][13]"

Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I like that version! Thank you! I'll put that in, and cite the Michelle Dean article as well in case people would like to read more.

-- Oulfis (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm, actually, as I look at it, I dislike the term "militant" even though it comes from the first source. To me, at least, the term seems to carry a pejorative judgment, especially since as far as I can tell both engaged in peaceful protests like picketing, refusing to pay taxes, and running educational programs. And it comes from their friend Carruth, not from either of the journalists, so it feels subjective.

I also wonder if a mention of infidelity would be appropriate, since both sources mention infidelity on both sides. I hesitate, however, since both sources also treat infidelity as a minor concern in their split, more a symptom than a cause, and I am not sure if this information is necessary/relevant or merely prurient.

Perhaps: "Increasingly radical, Rich and Conrad hosted anti-war and Black Panther fundraising parties at their apartment; however, infidelities and rising tensions began to split the marriage, and Rich moved out in mid-1970, getting herself a small studio apartment nearby.[9][15] Shortly afterward, in October, Conrad drove into the woods and shot himself.[9][13]" ?

(I am new to editing wikipedia so perhaps these edits are the sort which I should boldly make, but even though it's just two words, it feels like it importantly changes the interpretation of the section, and I'd prefer to start out cautious.)

-- Oulfis (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice one. :) Either "radical" or "militant" is fine with me. I think you're right when you say that the sources treat the infidelity as a minor concern and more of a symptom than a cause, and so it would be best to leave it out. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Tone of "Views on Feminism" Section

I tagged this section for tone — it's written in the style of an essay rather than being encyclopedic. There is definitely some content that should remain, but other parts are neither NPOV nor verifiable. Jhgtg (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013232000/http://www.artsandletters.org/awards2_popup.php?abbrev=Academy to http://www.artsandletters.org/awards2_popup.php?abbrev=Academy

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110115215931/http://www.lannan.org/lf/rc/event/adrienne-rich/ to http://www.lannan.org/lf/rc/event/adrienne-rich/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Mislabeled Section

"Perhaps the most prominent contribution of Rich can be seen through her works alone.” The section heading is “Views on feminism," not “contributions" to feminism. Hence the writer wants it both ways: the facade of a critical survey masking the usual political bent. I was looking for the telling Rich quote, “Feminism has no ground,” implying her growing disillusionment with the women’s movement, but failed to find it. Orthotox (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)