Talk:Germaine Greer/Archive 1

Cambridge
I saw Germaine Greer on a BBC4 television programme (see Illuminations on TV) and the caption on screen while she was talking said something to the effect of, "Prof Germaine Greer, Cambridge University", and further, the setting for her contributions looked rather like an Oxford or Cambridge college chapel (certainly nothing like Warwick). Is she back at Cambridge now?--AlexanderLondon 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article doesn't do Greer's career justice, so I'm going to do a re-write over the next few days. The page may look a bit odd at times in the course of that e.g. a References section with so far only one reference in it, but this will be very temporary. Slim 04:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

External links vs Further Reading
As I mentioned before, I'm thrilled you're improving this page. I do think that in the interest of standardisation the section-title "External links" makes more sense. --fvw *  22:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)


 * I went through the featured-article process recently with an article I wrote on Bernard Williams, and apparently the preferred thing is to have a References section, containing the books, articles, external links etc that you actually use to compile the piece; then you list the Books by that person if it's an author. Regarding an "external links" section, apparently there is no rule, but you can have one if you want one. My reasoning is that, as I'll be providing external links in the References section, it will look odd calling the remaining external links "External links," if you see what I mean. As they will be links I haven't actually used, and may include books and other materials not linked to, it seemed to me that "further reading" made most sense. If you look at Bernard Williams, you'll see how I did it there.


 * I'd prefer to follow the References/Books/Further reading model in the meantime, then when I've finished the rewrite, you can decide which you prefer, and we can always change it back again. I've written up to the Female Eunuch section, which I may start tonight, depending on how slow Wikipedia is. Hope that's okay. Best, Slim 22:45, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's definately more thought out than just an EL section. Works for me, keep up the good work. --fvw *  22:48, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Also, I've uploaded some pics, and will probably upload more. They may look a bit strange for awhile, with so many pics and very little text, but as the text fleshes out, it will hopefully all fit into place. I believe the photographs are fair use, as they can be found in several places on the Internet, but just to be sure, I'll be e-mailing the sites trying to find the copyright holder, and will seek that person's permission, to be safe. Slim 23:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're asking them anyway, try to get GFDL, that way the images can be included in other non-website versions of wikipedia as well. --fvw *  23:33, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Warwick?
Sorry to leave this page in such a mess. I meant to start expanding the Female Eunuch section a few days ago but got waylaid. About Warwick: is she definitely still there, because I heard she was moving/or had moved to Cambridge, but I can't find her in their English dept, and she doesn't seem to be listed at Warwick's either, unless I've gone blind. See here. Has she fallen through the cracks? SlimVirgin 13:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Intro
A professor of English literature at the University of Warwick in England, and the author of several highly acclaimed books, Greer's ground-breaking The Female Eunuch became... I wanted to change this because it's not grammatical: "a professor..." and "the author..." are dependent phrases, but they're attached to Greer's book, not to Greer herself. Jacquerie27 11:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, fair point. Sorry, I hadn't noticed this. Feel free to change it again. SlimVirgin 19:36, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jacquerie, I've changed it to: "A professor of English literature at the University of Warwick in England, and the author of several highly acclaimed books, Greer became a household name in 1970 when her ground-breaking The Female Eunuch became an international best-seller, bringing her both adulation and criticism." I hope that's okay. Thank you for pointing out my mistake and I'm sorry I didn't "get it" when you were trying to correct it. I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion. SlimVirgin 22:02, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it: I've done the same. I haven't been able to find GG at Warwick as a current member of staff, but their site does say this:


 * Germaine Greer is Professor of English and Comparative Studies. While teaching at Warwick earlier in her career, she wrote her ground-breaking book, The Female Eunuch.


 * When you look at an archived page from 2003, she's there as a member of staff (see ). Jacquerie27 10:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's weird that she's on Warwick's archived page but not the current one. I heard a rumor that she had gone back to Cambridge, or was intending to, but I can't find a reference to her on any of the Cambridge sites either, and the Guardian said she was at Warwick in a recent article about Big Brother. Actually, I just noticed I have "became" twice in the sentence I rewrote: "Greer became a household name . . . The Female Eunuch became . . . a bestseller," so I'm going to have to tweak it again. SlimVirgin 17:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: The sentence: "Over Easter weekend 2000, Greer was held hostage by Karen Burke, a nineteen-year-old student who had been writing to Greer, and who eventually broke into her home in Essex and tied Greer up in the kitchen. Friends expecting Greer for dinner went to find out what had happened to her, and found Greer lying in a distressed state on the floor, with Burke hanging onto her legs."
 * Apparently, according to those who found Greer, she was hanging onto Greer's legs shouting: "Mummy, mummy, don't leave me," but I thought I'd spare both women's dignity and not mention that last bit. SlimVirgin 19:38, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Lol. I hadn't heard that and I'd never thought of Greer as maternal myself. That's why I doubt she'd mind people mentioning it. Jacquerie27 12:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * She's actually surprisingly maternal, and getting more so as she gets older. This shows up very clearly on bits of the recent celebrity big brother thing (which I only scanned through for good Greer bits, honest!). Still, I don't think we should be withholding information to save people's dignity, it kind of conflicts with our purpose as a conveyor of information. Posting the "mummy, mummy" quote isn't strictly necessary in my view, but if we don't we might want to include at least some indication of the girl's motives. I'd add something myself, but this article is the first I've heard of the whole incident and I'm still not entirely clear what exactly was going on. --fvw *  14:55, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Finished first draft
I've finished the first draft of this article, so it's now just a question of filling it out with a few more details. I want to write more about her second book, and I also want to find something about the controversy she started in the mid-80s when she wrote somewhere that rape wasn't so bad, but that women had simply been conditioned to believe it was (conditioned by men), as part of men's view of women as property. I know her views on that lost her a lot of feminist support. I'd also like to write more about the Rachel Padman incident because that also lost her support, and I can't find out exactly when she left Newnham in relation to it. The bibliography also needs to be expanded, because she has written more books than just the ones mentioned. I also did insert the bit about Burke shouting: "Mummy, mummy" when she was found, because it's in all the articles about it, so it seemed odd to leave it out. SlimVirgin 05:54, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Greer's Politics
I did some of the early work expanding this bio entry from a stub. It's good to revisit and see the huge amount of work that has gone into the piece. At the moment I think the piece makes too much use of Wallace, with far more critical than friendly commentary on Greer. To some extent this is to be expected, but maybe we also need to find some sympathetic bio commentary and perhaps even more Greer in her own words.

To understand Greer, I think you need to know her basic politics, anarchism, which has underscored much of her writing since The Female Eunuch. I notice a para I wrote was taken out about the 15 Jan.


 * "Since at least the late 1950s she has identified herself with the philosophy of anarchism. Her regular public comments on social issues generate controversy and publicity, often for topics previously given little public attention."

This may seem like a generalisation, but Greer has publicly stated in the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s that she is an anarchist and sources are available to support this. I think this statement, or something similar, needs to go back into the article, as without it it becomes much harder to understand her motivation, actions and comments. --Takver 11:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Takver, thanks for your comments about the article. I kind of agree with you that there's a lot of criticism in it (though that's what's out there about Greer), but it seems to me that it's the kind of criticism that makes you want to know her.


 * Regarding the anarchist thing, I don't recall removing it, but if I did, it was probably more to do with the structure and finding a place to put it. I've added that she regarded herself as an anarchist to the top of the biographical details section, which now begins:

"Greer has stirred up her debate all her adult life, identifying herself since the late 50s as an anarchist. The Guardian reported that the writer Angela Carter described her as 'a clever fool', while former British MP Edwina Currie called her 'a great big hard-boiled prat'. Christine Wallace used the terms 'grooviness personified', 'anachronistic passivity', and 'hegemonic heterosexuality' to describe her subject, to which Greer replied that Wallace was a 'dung-beetle' and 'a flesh-eating bacterium'."

"'She has been in the business of shaking up a complacent establishment for nearly 40 years now,' wrote Stephanie Merritt in The Guardian ... '"


 * It doesn't fit all that well with the quotes that follow it, but I couldn't see where else to put it. Let me know what you think. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:06, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * For the moment it works okay. As a source, I added an external link down the bottom to the 1999 Lisa Jardine interview/review in which Greer says she is basically an anarchist. I might use more from this citation to flesh out The Whole Woman.--Takver 03:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the start of the biography section...
there are four paragraphs which have very little to do with her biog. It surely should start with her Melbourne childhood. I believe that those fist four paras should be removed. Its not that they hve no value itw just they are in the wrong position.Lentisco 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Which four paragraphs do you mean exactly, Lentisco? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see you removed them already. I've restored them. It's too much to delete without discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

All biog entries in any encyclopedia should have initially their birthplace, family life, education, teen years etc etc. As it now stands it goes stright to her influnce in society etc--which if it is to go any place at the end in a section labelled 'influence' If those paras stay they have no context at all. And the reader is lost. Lentisco 02:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then by all means look for a more suitable place, but don't keep deleting it. In any event, there's no rule that says bios must start with early life. There's nothing wrong with putting the person's notability in some kind of context first. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2006

(UTC)

Well I think youre wrong--its ugly, confuses the reader as it is illogical and unencyclopedic. The vast majority of other entries begin with their biographical details. However as you seem to be in charge of this little micro-world youre obviously not going to concede anything or negotiate. But you get to be in control and thats the important thing isnt it? No matter that wikipedia is let down. This will never be a featured article as it stands. Lentisco 01:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, everybody, avoid personal comments (even "subtle" ones). Wikipedia should be about the articles, not about the contributors. -- Writtenonsand 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Monty Python
I came to this article from the Monty Python article, which listed Greer as a notable actor in some of the sketches. But this article says nothing either way. Did she participate? When? How? What did she think of it? --maru (talk) contribs 04:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is she Australian?
She was born Australian, but I'd thought that she's tried to live away from Australia, openly criticises "the Australian culture" and maybe she's even given up her citizenship? Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks - 220.237.30.150 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Referring to someone's nationality in an encyclopaedia reference is meant to infer either where they live or were brought up, geographically. Their rejection of the culture or society of that nation, whether they embody some arbitrary set of "values" for that country is irrelevant in this case.  I've found no evidence that she's gotten UK citizenship, however I'm not 100% sure on that.
 * Suffice to say, I think we can leave the article how it is in regards to her nationality, perhaps just mention that she is an ex-pat living in the UK. - spider  202.81.18.30 05:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"her mind provokes like no other[...]"
For some reason this quotation is attributed to Christine Wallace writing in the sidney Morning herald. However if you follow the reference link it is from an article by Catherine Keeler. i have read the main body of the article it appears to me that Wallace didn't say it, instead the intro to the article clearly states: "Germaine Greer's mind provokes us like no other, but for all the wrong reasons, writes Catherine Keenan." Please do not reverse my changes in the name of vandalism which had previously been the case, if Wallace did indeed say it then verifiable refernces need to be added, and accusations of vandalsim not used so frequently. 213.121.151.142 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

twee headings
Until some can come up with a convincing argument I am renaming heading to 'biography' There are no 'details' as such in this article. This is a general interest page on GG. Show me where the 'details' are?. Other wise it reads as some high school essay. Can we have some class and accuracy?. The opinion quoted in the first part of her 'biography' does NOT belong there. This is an encyclopedia --we want facts. Any general reader does not want some opinion in this intial part of GG's page. Im moving them to a new section 'social impact' where they belong. Please do not revert. This page is messy and amateurish-Im trying to put some order into it.Melbob 04:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You've made 28 edits to articles. Perhaps you could try to be a little less overbearing? The whole page is her biography so it looks odd to call one section "biography." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a bit rich coming from you. No the whole page is not her 'biography' Theres her literary output and how it has been valued -does that belong on this page? Wel I think so but its not her 'biography' Show me the 'details' you want to defend. Its a very brief overview at best. Melbob 04:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What is a bit rich coming from me? And how is her literary output not part of her biography? I have no idea what you mean by "show me the details." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Question
I just have a general question about Greer. I don't know much about her and this is the first time i've learned much, if anything, of her. That's good - because this being an encyclopedia we want to allow people who are ignorant of a subject the ability to read on the subject and feel like they understand the subject enough to ask these fundamental questions i'm about to ask. The question pertains to the following paragraph:

"In 2003, The Beautiful Boy was published, an art history book about the beauty of teenage boys, richly illustrated with 200 photographs of what The Guardian called "succulent teenage male beauty", alleging that Greer had reinvented herself as a "middle-aged pederast." [6] Greer described the book as an attempt to address women's apparent indifference to the teenage boy as a sexual object and to "advance women's reclamation of their capacity for, and right to, visual pleasure" (Greer 2003). The boy pictured on the cover was Björn Andresen."

Now i'm sure i'm wrong and it no doubt raised several eyebrows, but based on this article alone, I have to ask if there was any criticism or defamation of her character due to this event? I mean - I would think if a grown man, for example, made a photography book of girls around 14 years old and said something like "advance men's reclamation of their capacity for, and right to, visual pleasure," it would probably spark heavy criticism and could possibly ruin his carrer.

So i'm just wondering, once again from the article alone, was there any reaction to this and is it worth mentioning? --Jelligraze 04:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, I was wondering this too. This page and the article on the book, don't list much criticism at all, and I'm pretty sure there was quite a lot. As you say, if a man released it, there'd be shouts of "pedophile" before the book hit the shelves. Iorek85 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good example of inequality and PC bullshit. I believe her motives were to make some attempt at encouraging young males to be targeted and sexually victimised in the way that many young women are portrayed.  Ms Greer has very little understanding or compassion for the male population in my opinion.  She sees us as the enemy.  I hope whichever male in her life made her this bitter and twisted person incapable of holding down a relationship with a man, caused her at least as much pain as she has caused Terri, Bindi and Bob Irwin. NSWelshman 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Can people with only opinions inspired by the vicarious love for Steve Irwin be counted as vandalism. And, though the scholar NSWelshman, has failed to see the irony in his commenting on a feminist's page trying to discredit her single status? The Boy was criticised mainly in mainstream media - the criticism in academic circles focused on her writing in an area where she is a nonspecialist. The book itself is esoteric and has implicit sexual undetones that i find distressing indeed, i think the failure to identify this further is that it is an overall impression of the work. 'PC Bullshit, or postmodernism, whichever you understand, would not have overlooked this, Australia's own sexist media would have -as misogyny and female stereotypes dsiplace men as well a women. As women are seen within stereotypes to be submissive sexual figures, it is less likely the press would make an allegation against Greer. Therefore NSWelshman applying "PC bullshit" to this instance would have shed more light onto the publication and its themes. - NM
 * NSWelshman was banned a couple of months back for persistent trolling. He/she is baiting you, there is not much to be gained from taking the lure. Phaedrus86 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

date conflict?
"She received her Ph.D. in 1968 ... The same year, in London, she married ... but the marriage lasted only three weeks, and ended in divorce in 1973."

This will baffle some people. Perhaps what is meant is that they separated after three weeks and divorced in 1973. Otherwise the marrage ended in divorce in 1968 or 1969.

Well, it makes sense to me. Perhaps the sentence could be changed to "...and ultimately ended in divorce in 1973" for clarity, but I won't change it- changes are best left to previous editors IMO 81.109.154.248 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) M Halton

Steve Irwin's "compatriot"?
Maybe this was intended to read "countryman" instead? I don't see anything in this entry or Steve Irwin's to indicate that they were "compatriots". Also, this article is apparently protected, but it isn't tagged as such.

Compatriot means a person of the same country/nationality. Look it up. AntonioBu 22:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "countryman" is really appropriate for Germaine Greer --Joshd 05:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think i can safely quote a fellow wikipedian about this issue:

"In general, since this is an article about an Australian person, the proper usage is Australian English (see Wikipedia's Manual of Style, Disputes over style issues.) However, when quoting another written source, it is appropriate to stick to the spelling used in that source. But it really should be emphasized that edit/revert warring, or otherwise causing strife over this issue, is less helpful to the encyclopedia than getting on with writing a useful, factual and readable article. --SiobhanHansa 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)"  dposse 21:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Germaine Greer is Australian as was Irwin. As per wiktionary, compatriot means a fellow-countryman. Greer has commented about Irwin that the 'The animal world got its revenge' - reported SMH 6 September and presumably elsewhere.--Golden Wattle ( formerly known as Arktos ) talk 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin was a proud true blue Aussie who promoted Australia. Germaine Greeer sold out Australia and as far as I'm concidered is an English person. Australia no longer needs or wants her back here. She can stay there and be a Brit for all I care. Her coments were extremly hurtful and inconciderate. The fact that she says it's an embarassment that his death is compared to Diana's. That we should mourn a Brit more than an Aussie because Germaine sees them as a better race. Let me tell you, Diana and Steve were BOTH dedicated to charitable causes. He has every right to be concidered as the Australian's loss compared to Diana. Stay in England Greer. Nobody here like you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs).
 * This is an encyclopaedia's biography page, not the letters page of the Daily Telegraph. That means that a) we're supposed to take care with our grammar and b) we're supposed to present facts about that persons life, not incredibly biased value judgements
 * Some Australians don't think Steve Irwin was some kind of latter-day saint, and they're not all left wing ratbags, you know. - Eyeresist 05:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fortunately Australian citizenship and nationality are not decided on popularity ratings. Like or dislike her views, she is still Australian. Phaedrus86 11:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fortuantly she has given up her Australian citzenship and is a British citazen. She's theirs and they can have her.


 * Oi! We don't bloody want her! Don't dump your rubbish on us. :-)


 * Hmm. Everywhere I look, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, quotes her nationality as Australian. You must be privy to information denied we lesser mortals. Please be kind enough to share it... with some proof, if you have any. Slight change of topic; anti-Greer diatribes have no place here, which is a place for discussion of the article. Personal phobias are best taken elsewhere. As the saying goes: "tell it to someone who cares". Phaedrus86 12:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Germaine Greer is ... (removed attack on living person - wikipedia is not a soapbox Golden Wattle talk) We need to stay neutral. In the article itself at least :) AntonioBu 22:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's bullshit about Germaine Greers citizenship.

Australia actively supports the idealogy that if you immigrate here you give up the citizenship of your birth (with some exceptions), but basically become Australian and support Australian values and way of life.

She's done the same thing and immigrated to another country, which makes her as British as any other, and if you don't like it, then stop making Australian immigrants call themselves "Australian" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HoCkster (talk • contribs) 05:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not true that Australia actively supports an ideology of giving up your birth citizenship when arriving in the country to live permanently. There is no such ideology. Thus, Germaine Greer may well hold both Australian and British citizenship, and still call herself both British and Australian, though it's still not clear from the article if she has acquired British citizenship at all. Australia, unlike some other countries, allows its citizens to hold dual or multiple citizenship(s), even if they are naturalised citizens, or if they were born in Australia but still entitled to foreign citizenship by birth. Australians with dual citizenship (such as myself) are no less Australian than those who only have the one nationality. Please see the section on dual citizenship in the wiki on Australian nationality law.150.203.2.85 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice that Greer's second most significant publication (according to the number of lines attributed to it on the Wikipedia page - much more with the footnotes) is her 1,000 words written about Steve Irwin in the Guardian last September. 130.102.0.178 09:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

References and notes

 * The article currently has three types of references: footnotes displayed in the notes section; Unlinked references; inline hyperlinks.  I am trying to tidy them into footnotes - probably the most useful referencing system using tags--Golden Wattle ( formerly known as Arktos ) talk 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no need to remove articles from the References section just because you're adding them as footnotes. It's good to maintain both. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree - they appear otherwise to the reader as listed twice within the space of a few lines. I think we should have only one section.--Golden Wattle ( formerly known as Arktos ) talk 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Footnotes will often contain details that the References section shouldn't have, such as page numbers. And the References section will contain ISBN numbers, which the footnotes shouldn't have. Therefore, it's better to have both, which is standard practise in publishing. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that at this stage a list of references is required as well as footnotes - there aren't that many footnotes. The rationale for both at WP:Cite seems to rest on With articles that have lots of footnotes ...--Golden Wattle ( formerly known as Arktos ) talk 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no point in deleting the Ref section that is there. All that means is it'll have to be recreated if there are more footnotes in future, as there are bound to be. I intend to restore it. If you don't want to be involved in maintaining it, that's fine. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not proposing to delete the reference section - I don't see the need for duplication and I think in line ext links need to be footnotes. --Golden Wattle ( formerly known as Arktos ) talk 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I added yesterday a quote from the Sydney Morning Herald in which certain prominent Australian politicans commented on Greer vis a vis Steve Irwin's death. It was both correct and referenced. It was removed. Why? If Greer's quotes on Irwin are cogent, then other peoples quotes on Greer and the subject are equally relevant. User:Johnwhunt


 * Oops, that was me! I didn't so much remove them but tried clumsily to consolidate them. I don't think repeating reports about how angry people are or how stupid they think Greer is really helps to understand Germaine Greer. Keep in mind Germaine Greer is the subject of this article, not Steve Irwin. I don't think Wikipedia should be a forum for the lowest common denominator, by which I mean a forum just for the majority view. I also don't think it pays to pay _too_ much attention to what politician's say - they often say things for reasons which are often deliberately kept obscure. They have to, that is their trade.
 * If a Wkikpedia article is to provide real information, it must provide as many views as it takes to understand the subject. Once we know lots of people are angry, then repeating it doesn't make the point stronger, because any reader just goes to sleep or goes away. Before they do that we need to try and show what other people were thinking, why she makes comments like that, what possible use that comments like that might occasionally be to the country, etc. I apologise for causing offence, but I think it comes under the heading of breaking eggs to make a very difficult omelette. Phaedrus86 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotations in the introduction
The introduction has four quotations concerning Germaine Greer, all of which actually come from females. Wouldn't it be better to include a comment from a male, especially when her works are concerning the two sexes? Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 12:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the Premier of Queensland just called her Stupid. That's a good start. NSWelshman 00:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I bet we could find other quotes referring to her as a pompus bitch or a man hater too. Her attitude is certainly more British than Australian. There are some Australian's embarassed by Steve Irwin. They're the ones with insecurity issues and huge inferiority complexes. NSWelshman 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is patently abusive and provocative to claim that people who don't happen to hold your opinions suffer from the issues you claim. Please don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Phaedrus86 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you go to Cultural cringe. This is a defined phenomenon. On that page this is even sited as an example. If you can get community consent to change that page I will remove this comment myself. NSWelshman 02:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * NSWelshman, you're being disingenuous. People were embarrassed by Steve Irwin (and disliked him) for a variety of different reasons, and stereotyping them as all suffering from "insecurity issues and huge inferiority complexes," is very silly and emotive. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can think of a few groups of people who would dislike him. Poachers, developers and those suffering from cultural cringe.  Which one are you?  The rest of us either like him or are indifferent.  It takes a special kind of inferiority complex to actively hate the guy. NSWelshman 11:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we're wandering off-topic here. Discussion about Steve Irwin can go to Talk:Steve Irwin. Right now we just need some comments in the introduction from males so the article would be more neutral. Aran|heru|nar 06:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hard enough getting neutrality. Looking for gender neutrality is a bit of an ask, I think. Does it really matter whether comments come from males or females? Phaedrus86 14:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion relates to something this ... said on record in public soon after the death of this man. That's why the discussion is in this ... page. NSWelshman 11:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it - this page is for discussion about the article, not for discussion about her. There are lots of seedy bars in the world to go vent about her. Not here. Please desist or you will end up being blocked again. Phaedrus86 14:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So block me. LIGAF. NSWelshman 23:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Snottygobble 04:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother?
Big brother operates in more than 30 countries. Which one was she inolved in? NSWelshman 00:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The one in the UK. The article does link to the UK Big Brother. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Right... so now we have to click on links and see where they lead before it's clear what they're talking about. Gotcha.  Next time  I need to refer to the Mexican government i'll just refer to it as 'the government' and make sure I have a link.... NSWelshman

Image1
I removed and deleted the image that was on the page, as I've just seen it on another website for sale. I don't think we can claim fair use if it has a commercial value. I've written to the agent to ask if they can make a free-license one available instead. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 11:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Good move. In terms of a replacement, I have a picture that should suffice. NSWelshman 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Significance?
A citation has been sought for the lead paragraph assertion widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century. A range of citations that support the assertion. I don't believe even her critics regard her as a nonentity when it comes to feminism.--Golden Wattle talk 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Germaine Greer –– Known as the diva of feminism -
 * 2) Here is the colorful cast of characters on whose shoulders we stand--the feminist icons Betty Friedan, Kate Millett, Germaine Greer, and Gloria Steinem - publisher comments http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0385318316-0] about the book:
 * 3) Germaine Greer's seminal work, The Obstacle Race: Fortunes of Women Painters and Their Work, (1979), ... -
 * 4) French is a respected American writer, part of a feminist pantheon that includes Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer. -
 * 5) Greer is included in the list at Feminist movement - it isn't a long list and you could ask for some citations there but I think it might come under the category of common knowledge a bit.
 * 6) We are thrilled to be welcoming feminist icon Germaine Greer, the controversial MP George Galloway, Orange Prize winner Lionel Shriver, best selling novelists Jonathan Coe and Louis de Bernieres, radical journalist John Pilger and psychotherapist Susie Orbach. + Germaine Greer is an Australian academic, writer, and broadcaster, who is widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century. - blurb for Hull Literature festival July 2006


 * Note the Guardian reference already listed (Greer walks out of 'bullying' Big Brother) states The writer, broadcaster and feminist icon, who had surprised commentators by agreeing to take part in the show ... - a citation thus already existed in the article.  The Sunday Times column written by Greer introduces her as veteran feminist - but presumably not any old "veteran feminist" gets to write for The Sunday Times.--Golden Wattle  talk 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a feminist does not equal being a "man hater"
I changed the sentence "is a British man hater, writer, and broadcaster, who is widely regarded as one of the most significant Feminism|Man Hater voices of the 20th century" into "feminist" and "Feminism". -- Birgitsnet 16:05, 15 September 2006 (GMT)
 * I would regard man-hater as point-of-view and in fact vandalism. - no need to discuss reversion of vandalism :-) --Golden Wattle talk 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a feminist does not equal being a "man hater" - absolutely. In fact the two are utterly incompatible. A feminist is supposedly someone who believes that men and women are equal and therefore should have equal rights, equal opportunities and be afforded equal respect. A sexist is the opposite to this. Greer clearly holds extremely degrading, stereotypical and sexist views about men, which she frequently tells the world about. (If anyone seriously wants me to give quotes to prove this I can do so very easily). As such I find the article's introductory assertion that Greer is a "feminist" to be highly controversial. Most people who agree with the above definition of "feminism" would regard Greer as one of the most significant sexist voices of the 20th century - Jonathan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs).


 * Wikipedia does not work by convincing arguments on a talk page. It is based on verifiability using reliable sources, not truth. Andjam 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

City Weekly
I'd like to reference a commentary from the Melbourne City Weekly Magazine, and below is the way I was thinking of doing it. Is this suitable; it would follow on from the existing para:

In September 2006, Greer's column in The Guardian newspaper about the death of Australian Steve Irwin attracted criticism for what was reported as a "distasteful tirade". In an interview with the Nine Network's A Current Affair about her comments, Greer said she "really found the whole Steve Irwin phenomenon embarrassing and [that she was] not the only person who did, or indeed the only Australian who did" and that she hoped that "exploitative nature documentaries" would now end. . Queensland Premier Peter Beattie labelled her comments "stupid" and "insensitive", one of a number of Australian political leaders to make similar comments. While several Australian newspapers reproduced part of her column they also published letters from readers incensed by her comments the following day. Other Australian commentators, such as P. P. McGuinness, the current editor of Quadrant, supported her comments. .

Another Australian commentator, Charlie Pickering, a contributor to Melbourne's City Weekly magazine, wrote in his September 14, 2006 "Soap box" column, "...What is very clear is that Steve Irwin did something that Greer has been unable to do for quite some time: put something positive into the world. Deep down he was something that she is not: proud to be Australian. Despite my love of all things intellectual above all else, of the two it is Steve, not Germaine, who makes me proud to be Australian. It is telling and perhaps unfortunate that should Germaine Greer be unlucky enough to meet a similarly ironic poetic demise (perhaps crushed under the weight of her own self-importance), there won't be a Germaine Greer to score cheap publicity points from it".

And then also add a reference:


 * Pickering, Charlie. "Nasty Creatures Invading Our Habitat; When a recently deceased crocodile hunter meets a reptile of the press, it's hardly a fair contest.", City Weekly, September 14, 2006

Cheers, 210.50.228.5 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it belongs on the Steve Irwin page, if anywhere, but not here. The statement is heavily biased and does not explain anything about Greer. Demonisation doesn't help anyone understand anything, and neither does hagiography. Not everyone thinks Irwin is such a saint. I think plenty of people sick of hearing about him find the Greer page a welcome bit of light relief. OK, I'm being flippant here, but seriously, many have criticized Greer for her comments all her life. I think there is already a fair sample of that criticism in the article. More doesn't help. Phaedrus86 04:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, Melbourne City Weekly Magazine is not sufficiently notable I am afraid. I think only comments from leading newspapers and /or commentators should be included and, as per Phaedrus86, we already have enough.  I don't think the Steve Irwin page would benefit either - responses to Greer's comments have been made and referenced and this one is not anything new or different.  --Golden Wattle  talk 06:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...
Shouldn't the article make some mention of the general consensus that Germaine Greer is, as feminist critic Betty Friedan put it, "a raging c***,"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.33.90.34 (talk • contribs).
 * Only if accompanied by a citation of a very reliable source. Commentary from Friedan would be more meaningful than commentary by Luscombe or Keenan or even Edwina Currie.--Golden Wattle  talk 20:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that 98% of the world is a good enough source.
 * oh please just shut up.  People are well-equipped to make that sort of decision themself, and they don't seem to need help to think she's an idiot. So why discredit the article with this crap?  Besides, show me how you've polled the entire world population on Germaine Greer, or that 98% of the world even knows who she is?  Are you one of those mindless Steve Irwin twits who vandalised the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.81.18.30 (talk • contribs).

Rabbit
She appeared in a recently released film about the rabbit vibrator, and chimed in on the critical panning it received. She claims she was paid £1 for her appearance (residuals to follow once the film broke box-office records), and wishes she hadn't bothered. What an unusual person - so intelligent on serious subjects, so willing to jump in to cartoonish media stunts. Judging by the article, she's been doing this since the early days.--80.4.169.22 11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Libel allegation
The following was moved from the Finished first draft section, where it was clearly out of place. Phaedrus86 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The student was not charged with unlawful imprisonment. This is a contemporaneous site, so allegations that the student did so are libellous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131Alex131 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the Telegraph article cited in Germaine Greer at the end of the paragraph on the hostage incident. This article states about the student that Charges of causing actual bodily harm and unlawful imprisonment were withdrawn. This means that, before the charges were withdrawn, she was actually charged. Therefore the statement is true if the newspaper report is true. The newspaper concerned, the Telegraph, is a reputable news source. Your comment that "This is a contemporaneous site" is absurd when used in relation to an incident that occurred over 6 years ago. Taking all this into account, the "hostage statement" is NOT libellous. An unqualified individual claiming that something is libellous does not come anywhere near making it libellous. Kindly post opinions from qualified professionals, together with verifiable statement of their qualifications which would lead us to believe their opinions are credible. Until then, kindly desist from vandalising Wikipedia articles. Phaedrus86 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tidied it a little. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the second sanitisation of the truth in response to a completely irrational accusation of libel. I don't like giving in to nutters, but it looks like I will have to bow out of the argument. Phaedrus86 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation templates
Could people please not use citation templates? They make the article very hard to edit. See below for example. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In September 2006, Greer's column in The Guardian newspaper about the death of Australian Steve Irwin attracted criticism for what was reported as a "distasteful tirade". Greer said that "The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin". In an interview with the Nine Network's A Current Affair about her comments, Greer said she "really found the whole Steve Irwin phenomenon embarrassing and [that she was] not the only person who did, or indeed the only Australian who did" and that she hoped that "exploitative nature documentaries" would now end. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie labelled her comments "stupid" and "insensitive", one of a number of Australian political leaders to make similar comments. While several Australian newspapers reproduced part of her column they also published letters from readers incensed by her comments the following day. Other Australian commentators, such as P. P. McGuinness, the current editor of Quadrant, supported her comments..


 * I don't think the templates add much more complexity than the citations add. Plenty of citations, which is a good thing, necessarily adds text which is hard to read while editing. Just something we have to put up with. They also help to identify citation components and standardise citations, so I think on balance they are useful, and I will continue to use them. I won't undo what you have done, though :-) Phaedrus86 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They add a lot more text and are completely unnecessary. They also don't help to standarize citations: on the contrary, you didn't list the byline for the Telegraph article. They're really very annoying to have to deal with and have made that section uneditable. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if that was too harsh, but they drive me up the wall. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I de-templated 4 citation templates I added today, for the sake of avoiding conflict and because Citation templates says that "Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus." There is the point though that not using templates works fine...until you want to change the layout of the item. Then to change half a million instances, you can make one change to a template, or if you don't use them, spend the next 10 years making half a million edits. Phaedrus86 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing some anyway. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "on the contrary, you didn't list the byline for the Telegraph article"
 * Took me while to track this one down. The byline was deliberately omitted, it was not due to any aspect of template usage. I don't see any point quoting bylines where the author of a newspaper article is not relevant to a story. In a situation like that, the information is the credibility of the publisher and the title of the article. People want to see the byline they can follow the link. Phaedrus86 03:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The citation templates don't need to be completely unreadable. They can be formatted will with some good, old fashioned whitespace, making them easy to find, and read around. They don't just add a lot of text - they add a lot of information, too. Chovain 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. A week ago I formatted the remaining templates in the Recent Events section to improve readability. Phaedrus86 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Rape
The article says that she uses her own experience of rape in her writing but does not say anything more. Was she raped? If so when, how, by who and how does she use it in her writing? The bellman 13:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A search on Google for keywords "Greer rape" shows several references. Phaedrus86 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image
I'm not sure this image is appropriate because of the expression on her face. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly much nicer photographs: http://www.dundee.ac.uk/pressoffice/contact/2005/february/greer.html Mgoodyear 23:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We had the image you linked to, claiming fair use, but then I found it on another website for sale. We're only allowed to claim fair use if our use of an image doesn't affect its monetary value, so I had to delete it. It's good to have a freely licensed one, as the current one is; I just worry that she was caught at an awkward moment. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

SV, I think you are absolutely right, and I would like to see a nicer one. There are so many people who hate her, this is likely to reinforce prejudices. We could always ask her for one I suppose? I think also one could have a link to this image. Mgoodyear 17:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked her agents, Gillon Aitken Associates at http://www.gillonaitkenassociates.co.uk/ for a photo that we could use. I explained Wikipedia's draconian copyright rules and they gave explicit permission for the image "Greer - to use always.JPG" to be used. Since the agent's role in life is to promote their client, if they provide an image, I really don't think that we should quibble over it. If the image is found on other web sites, that does NOT mean that we can't use it here simply because that other web site asserts copyright, or is copyrighted by virtue of being published. We CAN use it, because her agents said we can. What's more, the image provided accords her respect, which the previous image did not. Phaedrus86 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good, but have you confirmed the permission with the Foundation?--cj | talk 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, did so just now. I have to say it is all very Kafkaesque, jumping through hoops to very verify that we can use an image which was explicitly produced for this sort of purpose. It is surprising that Wikipedia gets any decent illustrations at all with this degree of paranoia. Phaedrus86 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but it is ultimately worthwhile. Thanks for making the effort to attain a photo – the previous was very unsuitable.--cj | talk 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Advised by SlimVirgin that agents don't hold copyright, so Wikipedia rules don't allow it. Waste of time that was. Phaedrus86 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the previous photo has been reinstated, thus contributing to Wikipedia mediocrity. Not much point trying to maintain this crap. Phaedrus86 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor Emeritus status
Greer is described as being Professor Emeritus of the University of Warwick, but the university's list of Emeritus Professors last updated on 13 Nov 2006 at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/calendar/section3/professors/ does not include her name.

The university ordinances on Emeritus Professors at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/calendar/section2/ordinances/emeritus/ says that The Council may, on the recommendation of the Senate, confer the title Emeritus Professor on any Professor of the University after his/her retirement....

This appears to indicate that she has not been awarded the title by the university. She might possibly by convention be regarded as a Professor Emeritus by virtue of being a retired professor. However if the institution specifically allows for the title to be awarded and does not appear to have done so, then it would seem presumptuous to describe her as having the title of Professor Emeritus.

Does anyone have any proof she is entitled to the title? If not, then perhaps we should consider removing it from the article. Phaedrus86 05:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked Warwick University about this and they tell me that she did not in fact retire from Warwick but simply reached the end of her contract. She is not regarded as a Professor Emeritus as far as the university is concerned. More information when it comes to hand. When I have enough I will change the article to make it more accurate. Phaedrus86 11:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to find any more on it, which leaves us with:
 * Warwick University advise informally that they do not regard her as Professor Emeritus
 * the Warwick University list of Emeritus Professors above does not include her name
 * Warwick University advise informally that she did not retire, she simply reached the end of her contract
 * I can find no Internet sources which say she retired or that she is entitled to be called Professor Emeritus


 * In the light of the above, I have removed the title Professor Emeritus and the reference to her having retired, on the grounds that they are uncited and misleading. Phaedrus86 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed her status to "retired academic" as this is stated at http://www.answers.com/topic/germaine-greer - If she is not employed an an academic and is not retired then she can be referred to as "former academic". She is not entitled to use "Prof" unless so employed or is an emeritus professor, which according to the above she is not.  Considering she is not employed at a university and is 68 (this week) I suggest we use "retired academic".  I am certainly surprised to find out that she was only on a contract and did not even have tenure.  I note she is not on the full time or part time staff list at the university. Chicago8 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely confident that 'retired' should be used to describe her position, particularly as it seems to be based solely on age. From above it is clear that she did not actually retire, rather chose not to renew her contract, which is an entirely different thing. Also, were she to retire, it would also seem logical that she might express interest in applying for an emeritus professorship. I don't see how the answers.com article helped, it is just a copy of the wiki page - an older version. Regarding the use of her title, my understanding has always been that in Britain it is the case of once being appointed a professorship one is free to retain the title? I can't find anything useful on the wiki article on it, my basis for this attitude is the fact that the British system does not have a concept of a 'lesser professor', only a professor and lecturers, readers etc. Perhaps someone else could check that? (AJMW 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Well, it's not based on age, but on the article. The age is relevant because it seems more likely to be rerirement than anything else.  She also has been busy being a journalist and author.  The protocol is that you can use the title Prof if employed as such or are appointed as an emeritus professor.  From her bio, is also seems unlikely that she would go to another university.  But, until she does, to be accurate it should be former or retired and I suggest retired. (By the way nothing above suggests she chose not to renew, only that it was not renewed.) Chicago8 02:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Self Confessed Adulteress
Why was this fact removed. She very openly makes the admission. It is particularly relevant for a person who speaks about feminism, women's issues and marriage. It is no one else's opinion - it is her statement. It is properly referenced. Comment1 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Censorship
The recent deletion from a discussion page amounts to censorship. GG invites fame by deliberatively being controversial, radical, annoying etc. The quotes on the page include "clever fool" - "hard boled prat" - the quote be Professor Lisa Jardine - her husband - being arrested for foul language - "She has been in the business of shaking up a complacent establishment" - etc etc. This is well documented on her page. You may disagree with this. But people are discussing her behaviour and even associating it with her fame. If you disagree - say so - do not censor a discussion page because of your own views. I invite others to comment. I will reinstate - now on this new page - tomorrow. I invite comments - unlike another who has tried to supress it. Comment1 02:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you reinstate material that violates BLP, you may be blocked from editing. Please review WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles, and the relevant section of WP:BLOCK. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have pointed out that the comments for this person (which were not made by me) are legitimate. The article is full of the same.  Why are you afradid of free speech.  I would welcome an arbitration on this issue. Comment1 02:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just read what has now been censored twice by SlimVirgin. Greer annoys many people.  This is well referenced - the example above from the page are a few examples worthy of keeping - apparently. Greer intellectually cgallenges all of us - and this is very annoying to many of us.  We are capable of understanding the brilliance with the bizarre. While we must be more careful about the content of the article; a discussion page is a vaild place for discussion.    That is just like saying Greer remains controversial and this keeps her in the press.  Should we report SlimVirgin for censorship?  Is there a protocol on this?  60.226.76.41 14:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't a gratuitous comment worthy of censorship. She is annoying. Is this statement going to be censored. I agree it is the way she gets her fame. And she realised it many years ago. It is a valid point worth discsussing - and it is in the article. She likes to shock. Chicago8 11:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guys, is this little chat about the "this woman annoys me ..." post I removed? Because if it is may I just say in my defence: this is an encyclopedia and if comments are a personal opinion about the subject of the article rather than the article itself then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia! For instance if you had said 'this article annoys me' that would have been ok. If you feel so strongly about it then find a source from Greer's own mouth which says something along the lines of "I annoy people and I don't care about it" then add it, source it and it will be acceptable. As for free speech, I diasagree that free speech is the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is suposed to be about facts which are unclouded by opinions, good or bad. Free Speech is about opinions. "Why censor the comment that Greer deliberately annoys to maintain her fame." - Good point but that wasn't what the comment was, was it? It was more like "this woman annoys me..."! A random opinion which was noted at the time as being unhelpful. The discussion page is for opinions about the article, not about the article's subject, thanks!--SAS87 18:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You say "Good point but that wasn't what the comment was, was it?" Yes it was.  You should have read it before deleting it.  There are four entries.  The fourth said "Being annoying is how she has achieved her fame. She invites these comments and says she does not care." Now are you going to reinstate it - now that you say it is a good point. Comment1 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)