Talk:Amanda Marcotte

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


.

This is an article about the Bill Donahue controversy not about Amanda Marcotte[edit]

This is patently obvious when viewing the article. I think we should look to rename the article. Turtlescrubber 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree. Also does anybody know where Marcotte has been called a feminist?--Cailil talk 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link where the excreble Ms. Marcotte calls herself a feminist: http://feministblogs.org/author/amanda-marcotte/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer Ratcliffe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Sanitization[edit]

Another ed has removed this sourced material with the justification of making the article more balanced. This reflects a basic misunderstanding – "balance" means the article generally reflects what is contained within the broader world of secondary WP:RS, not that if the article says something negative, it must also say something positive so that we're not being mean. For the record, I'm a completely disinterested editor. I've never read anything authored by Marcotte, nor am I familiar with any of her work. However, I have reverted vandalism on this article from time to time. That being said, there is a fairly vast body of secondary sources on Marcotte, most of which seems to be of the nature of the sources I recently added (but which have been deleted). In perusing the record, it seems there is a long-standing tendency to sanitize information such as this from the article. Please let us have an article that reflects the available sources. Agricola44 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

It would be good if we could find tertiary sources or high-quality secondary sources to demonstrate that such a strongly negative article is in fact balanced, especially since this is a BLP. I definitely agree that sources about Marcotte seem to be more often negative than positive, and the current state of the article already reflects that, but we should be very wary of having a BLP that consists primarily of criticism. That being said, I don't feel strongly about the "perpetually outraged" quote, and I won't remove it again if you add it. The "intolerant" quote is not supported by the source, though, as far as I can tell. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian[edit]

As far as I can tell, she has not contributed to the Guardian since October 2013. Perhaps the article should reflect this. SheepOG (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Rape-loving scum"[edit]

I see this quote of Marcotte's characterization of defenders of the accused Duke rapists has been removed at least once before and now again after my recent edit. I've restored it with an additional source. Here is the context for the quote:

People who continue to wax on about the Duke rape case: People don’t respond because you’re right. (sic) They don’t respond because they know from experience that anyone who defends men who write thing like this:

tommrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. all besides arch and tack please respond

Hates women and would defend a rapist who was caught in the act on videotape. No one talks to you because you are rape-loving scum. If you think otherwise, you are mistaken. Your beloved boys who scream “nigger” at black women and joke about killing and raping them may escape the worst charges, but they are not angels. You know it, we know it. That you defend them makes you such lowly, sleazy scum that it’s no wonder no one talks to you. They’re afraid by acknowledging you, they will catch the evil. Know this. Absorb it. Hope you enjoy sleeping at night, you sick, hateful bastards.

I don't think there's a question as to whether she wrote it, only possibly her target and intent - which we now we have two secondary sources for. More broadly I think not including it is a problem - we say she made controversial statements which led to her resignation but don't explain what they were. The one we do relate is in bad taste but obviously sarcastic and not unexpected from a controversial feminist blogger. As someone unfamiliar with her statements prior to reading the article I was confused about the controversy and left to dig through the sources myself to make sense of it. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Granger: Re this edit, I think there's a genuine misunderstanding here. The italicized section in the quote above (which begins with "tommrow night") is a quote from an email sent by one of the accused students. Marcotte says in reference to that email: "... anyone who defends men who write thing like this ... hates women and would defend a rapist who was caught in the act on videotape. No one talks to you because you are rape-loving scum." It seems pretty clearly directed at anyone defending the student who wrote the email. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat concerned about my phrasing. I wrote: "including calling those who defended the accused" implying there might be specific individuals she referred to as "rape-loving scum", which is not the case. It would be more correct to say "including calling anyone who would defend the accused" - but that is possibly a more severe rebuke. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting this discussion. I agree that there's no question that Marcotte wrote the comment, only what she meant. The Daily Dot article is clearly using Cathy Young's article as a source, and Cathy Young has known biases and does not always accurately represent the opinions of people she disagrees with, so neither of those are reliable sources for what Marcotte meant, although I do think they are adequate primary sources for the claim that Marcotte's statement was controversial.
As for what she did mean, based on her phrasing, it seems to me that she was not calling everyone who defended the accused "rape-loving scum", but only "people who continue to wax on" about the case. How would you feel about rephrasing the article to say 'calling defenders of the accused "rape-loving scum"' or 'calling people who defended the accused "rape-loving scum"', to avoid analyzing what she meant as much as possible? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either one is fine with me. Even, if you want to capture the point about waxing on, "'calling people who continued to "'calling those who would continue to defend the accused..." James J. Lambden (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I've rephrased the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my earlier phrasing above to incorporate the conditional (i.e. "who would") The current wording could be interpreted to mean she directed the comment at specific individuals, which we want to avoid. But my suggested wording seems overly verbose. I may be putting too much thought into a minor point so if you're comfortable with the current wording I won't object. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"calling those who would continue to defend the accused..." is fine with me, although I agree it is wordy. I'm also fine with the current wording. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're happy with it I'm happy with it. I think the article in general needs improvement. It's disjointed (e.g. the "Activities since 2008" section ends with the unconnected phrase "Charlotte Allen called Marcotte 'perpetually outraged'."), incomplete (I haven't followed her recent activities but I see she wrote an article last year for Rolling Stone, which isn't mentioned) - if I get some time in the next week I'll take a stab at improvement. I'd appreciate your input and collaboration. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's still essentially WP:UNDUE; the coverage of that quote (and the focus on it in the sources) is much, much lighter than the one it's being paired with. Given how bloated the paragraph in question is, I don't think it's really justifiable to include both with equal weight. I'm also concerned with characterizing the second quote as "mentioned in the New York Times" as though that's a big deal - the mention is in passing, in an article focused on other things. I also have WP:DUE concerns about the excessive emphasis on the Duke Lacrosse case relative to other scandals at the time - it gives the implication that this was a major factor in her reputation, in Edwards' decisions regarding her, and her eventual resignation. None of this is true - the best-quality sources in the paragraph (especially the ones about her personally) weight it, at best, equal with the Catholicism issue, and usually below it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Amanda Marcotte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amanda_Marcotte&oldid=1208793997"