Talk:Gail Dines/Archive 1

Archive 1

re concerns over BLP issues in Criticism section

When I wrote this article, I created a "Criticism" section and left it blank, because I know Dines has been criticized but didn't have the info handy.

I expected that editors would come along and perhaps note criticism from other academics or the like, perhaps criticizing Dines's methods, conclusions, use of data, and so forth.

Instead, what we got was material, stating that Dines writes solely or primarily to make money, describing her as a "predator" who deliberately exploits sex workers for her own personal profit and making other personal attacks The material is sourced to a couple of blogs and a YouTube video.

In my opinion, this is fairly inflammatory material, probably libelous, not really on-subject, and poorly sourced. Given WP:BLP and all, I thought it best to remove this material. Herostratus (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Massive Sexist

Dines has been criticized by other feminists for making dismissive and sexist arguments when challenged. This is seen in many video media examples. Text articles would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.169.54 (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag on "Reception" section

I tagged this section. For one thing, the Publisher's Weekly excerpt is awfully long (possibly too long to qualify as fair use, in fact) and IIRC is a bit cherry-picked; they had some better things to say about her too, I think. Second of all, the entire section is entirely negative, and I find it somewhat unlikely (although not impossible) that she doesn't have some supporters. If she's really an obvious idiot or montebank with no significant defenders or admirers, why have all those notable publications published her work, and who is paying her speaking fees, and so forth? Seems dubious. Herostratus (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Concerns

The comments from Nina Hartley were, I feel, completely justified. They are indicative of the consensus of most sex workers with regards to Gail Dines and to reflect their opinion of her is not libel. It is not libelous to say that she profits from criticizing the profit motives of the sex industry - this too is a demonstrable fact. Additionally, one of those blogs was that of Violette Blue, who is one of the leading voices in pro-sex feminism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.65.23 (talk • contribs)

It's not libelous to say that she profits from criticizing the profit motives of the sex industry, but it is ridiculous. What you mean is that she accepts royalties on book sales and fees and expenses for lectures. This is true of essentially every other writer and lecturer in the world, and is frankly the most ridiculous strawman argument that I have heard in my entire life. To be honest, what this tells me about your intellectual integrity removes any interest I might have had in making the effort to even evaluate your other arguments. Herostratus (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not a strawman argument- the woman decries the sex industry for being capitalistic and attacks capitalism as a whole then turns right around and enjoys the benefits of the same capitalistic system. Its absolute hypocrisy and its not coming from me directly- its a reflection of the criticism that many have of her. Look, when I read Joey Jordison's article on here, it said that he had been criticized during his time playing for Al Jorgensen for not being able to play the songs correctly. I went and looked at the source on that and it was just a bunch of people bitching on a forum. If that's credible enough to be cited, why not a keynote address being given by Nina Hartley, a world renowned sex educator and sex worker? I don't know who you are, but there are a hell of a lot more contributors to this site than you, so kindly stop trying to cherry pick what voices can be heard. You set up a criticism space against Gail Dines, this is the criticism that she gets and from a broad array of credible persons. "To be honest," this raises a lot of red flags in my mind about your neutrality. (Following up here) Ok- I just put in criticism levied by Publisher's Weekly and by Penn & Teller on their show Bullshit, for which Dines was interviewed. These criticisms were leveled at how her claims are not supported by academic and scientific findings. Hope that's better.

If Dines is an avowed communist, that'd be an important data point and should go in the article. Do you have any ref's for this? Now to the rest. First of all, refs pointing to sites (such as this one that are restricted to a subset of Wikipedia users are not allowed, period. Next. Our Biographies of Living Persons policy is taken very seriously here. "Such material... must adhere strictly to... Wikipedia's three core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR." "Contentious material about living persons that is... poorly sourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". And you also have "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person".

Now, it's true that in some non-BLP situations we sometimes allow some leeway in sourcing to blogs and whatnot, but in contentious BLP situations the refs must strictly meet the standards of verifiability and reliability. At WP:V, under "What counts as a reliable source", we have "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments... Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources... But... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." As to blogs, "Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". So even if WP:BLP didn't flatly rule out blogs, any blog used use would have to be under the editorial control of an established media entity.

As to Joey Jordison, I'm not familiar with the article, but it sounds like material in that article should be redacted also. Since you're familiar with the article, maybe you could do the Wikipedia this service. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As to Penn Gillete, Penn Gillette is a comedian for chrissakes, not an academecian or respected researcher or journalist, and the Wikipedia is not the Weekly World News, and we don't use screaming fits from the Jerry Springer Show or whatever as sources.

OK? I have redacted your material, and please note the WP:BLP passages that indicate that editors who restore inappropriate BLP material are not necessarily looked upon with great kindness. Herostratus (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Penn Jillette (with a J) is a professional magician, not a comedian. You could say, however, that he's a fellow at the Cato Institute, if that would lend greater credibility to his opinion. Additionally, Bullshit, despite its name and comedic tone, is not on par with the Jerry Springer show. And it does have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." I notice that certain articles have a "controversy" section- would that be more appropriate for these arguments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.80.61 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, a strawman argument is when you respond to an intentional misrepresentation of a person's point of view, so the worst strawman argument you've ever heard... wasn't a strawman argument. I'm putting the publisher's weekly quote back up- its relevant whether you like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.65.23 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Publisher's Weekly quote is fine. Much better. Herostratus (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.65.23 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming to this discussion a bit late, but I have some concerns about the basis for Herostratus' removal of material. I have a problem generally with people who interpret WP:BLP as somehow calling for "Sympathetic Point of View" rather than WP:NPOV, and it seems to me that a lot of the Wikipedia BLP community is falling into that type of error. Holding a higher bar for statements critical of public figures than non-critical material will have this effect. More specifically, barring statements by somebody like Nina Hartley just because they aren't writing for an academic publication is completely uncalled for.

That said, I'm familiar with the Desiree Alliance video, and she discusses Dines mainly in passing. There were also undue weight concerns about the earlier version of the "Criticism" section (which actually should more properly be a "Reception" section that includes both laudatory and critical opinions of Dines), which was several times longer than the rest of the article. That, I think, could be best dealt with by significantly expanding previous sections on Dines and her academic work. (I dealt this was with similar concerns in an article I edited on Melissa Farley.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, I do agree that WP:BLP shouldn't be taken as license to omit negative personal information. However, such information has to be reasonably credible.

Is Dines guilty of financial impropriety? She would be if she has taken money under the table from the Family Research Council, or from one pornography publisher to attack a rival, or had gotten in trouble with the IRS for not reporting income, or even if she was reliably quoted as saying "Other professors drive Hondas, but I want to drive a Cadillac, and that's why I do this". Something like that.

Instead, we have a passing statement in some person's blog asserting that she's guilty of financial impropriety (or maybe just financial hypocrisy) with no details and no proof or even assertion of proof. And even then, as near as I can tell, the alleged financial impropriety (or hypocrisy) is "accepting money for her work". Well, you can say that about anyone - Ralph Nader, Martin Luther King, Jesus, Mother Teresa, whomever (Jesus and Mother Teresa took payment in kind - food and shelter - rather than salaries, but no difference). So its meaningless. And it's not only meaningless, it's silly.

And once it's been established than an editor is not serious, I'm not going to do the work of going through his material and vetting his refs. So I didn't even get to Nina Hartley. But if Nina Hartley has something useful to say, we can talk about that. If she has documented proof that Dines is guilty of impropriety, fine. But if she's just ranting, we don't have to allow ourselves to be used as a platform for that. Herostratus (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is accusing Dines of financial impropriety, but she is seen by her opponents as a kind of moral entrepreneur, basically "selling" a problem, to which she offers her brand of feminism as a solution. In terms of financial interest, it has been noted that she charges a high speakers fee (I believe in the area of $6000 per talk) and that her frequent speaking engagements and best-selling book have earned her a lot of money. That's not financial impropriety, but it is a financial stake in the issue. If I find non-trivial sources outside of the blogosphere for this criticism, I think it should be included. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno if $6,000 is out of line for someone like her. I'd be surprised if it was out of line, though. If it was out of line, people wouldn't pay it, right? They'd get someone just as good for less. The fact that people are willing to pay her fee is pretty strong evidence that she's worth it, the marketplace being the marketplace. And if she can get $6,000, there's no reason for her to take less. If there's some evidence that a mechanism other than the marketplace is setting her fees - if she's giving kickbacks or there's under-the-table dealings or whatever, that'd be different. And you say "frequent speaking engagements" and "best-selling book" like its some kind of reason for opprobrium. You throw in moral entrepreneur to muddy the waters, since "entrepreneur" usually means the a profit-motivated businessperson, but "moral entrepreneur" has nothing to do with that. And again with the "financial stake in the issue". What do you want Dines to do? Turn down her speaking fees? Not take "frequent" speaking engagements and stay home and watch TV instead? Turn over her book royalties to the Little Sisters of the Poor? Write books about 14-Century Latvian manuscripts instead? But look. I think that criticism of her work would be a lot more enlightening for the reader. But if you want to go down the rabbit-hole of attacking her as a person then fine - as long as you meet strictly, and I mean strictly, every jot and tittle of WP:BLP and WP:RS, then maybe you'll be OK. I say maybe, because even then, if it's character-assassination bullshit, it is not going to fly. Herostratus (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll simply note that Dines claims to be an anti-capitalist, and therefore places herself in a postion that holds her to a different standard. She harps on pornographers for making money on sex, after all. That lays her open to criticisms of what she makes her livelihood on. But in any event, this is not about my pet criticisms or anybody else's. If the criticism exists from a notable source, it deserves mention, plain and simple. If not, it doesn't. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here- in recent video footage Gail has referred to herself as a Marxist, thus validating the criticism of her wealthy, affluent lifestyle and capitalistic endeavors (trying to sell her books.) I would also say that the neutrality issue could be resolved if the section were called "Criticism" instead of "Reception." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.70.90 (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ms. Blog

This appears to be RS. Ms. (magazine) looks to be an expert in the field and I assume has enough "people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing" to be considered RS. Therefore the "blog" in this case is acceptable as "some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The author might be considered an expert in the field and certainly has the credentials: associate professor in the Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies Department at California State University, Long Beach; quoted widely in print, radio, and online media; writing appears in RS and her published books; doctorate in political science from the University of California, Los Angeles.[1] So the interview and response solicited by Tarrant could be used if done correctly.Cptnono (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the material in the Ms Blog should definitely be included, with the caveat that the blog commentary following the articles does not rise to the level of a reliable source. Note that Shira Tarrant, the author and interviewer in the Ms piece, went on to debate Dines on public radio. (I'll have to dig for the link on that.) That should definitely be considered a reliable source of criticism.

As far as opinions in support of Dines, that seems to come mainly from others in the anti-pornography movement, especially the feminist branch of it. Robert Jensen is a close collaborator, and Julie Bindel is a strong supporter. I'm having a harder time finding examples of supporting views independent of the anti-pornography movement, however, probably because there isn't a whole lot there. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the Ms. blog looks like a perfectly acceptable source, per the points given above. Blog or no, it's acceptable as part of Ms. Magazine. Tarrant looks to be a respected writer, and Routledge is a good publisher (I'm not sure about her other publishers, but they're probably OK too), so material from her should be OK in general. Herostratus (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"superbly"?

An editor is insisting on adding "Owen also responded through a YouTube video which superbly rebutted not only Dines's criticism of his use of the expression "squish mitten", but also the other points she brought up against him in the same post." reffed to this. Reverted again per WP:BRD but that puts me at 2RR so I've fouled out. Anybody else want to take this up. On the merits, 1) "superbly" is the editors opinion I gather and so not appropriate, 2) who is Owen anyway and how much do we want to feature him in an article on someone else, and 3) in a larger sense, we get that the typical Wikipedia editor is going to find Dines to be anathema, but how much more than half of a WP:BLP should be devoted to hammering on a person, I wonder. Herostratus (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that it's highly unusual to have an external link to YouTube or use it as a source. It's not considered a reliable source, especially when it's used to disparage the subject of an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's not a good link. The entire passage is beyond ridiculous. And Owen is just a private citizen -- he has no standing to appear in this conversation. The whole article is a disgrace to the Wikipedia. I've worked on it in the past but dealing with an army of beer-addled frat boys is not my cup of tea, and as I say I've fouled out and have no desire to be hauled up on edit-warring charges. If you want to revert it that'd be good though. Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I just removed this section - it entirely lacked reliable sources, and given that this Owens person does not seem to be notable, it's not clear why it would be worth including in the article anyway. I also removed the following section about a Samsung TV commercial, which was about criticism by Dines rather than reception/criticism of her. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit

Why no mention of her appearance on the season 6 episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, War on Porn? 184.89.18.134 (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gail Dines. 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/20090330143944/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/dines06232008.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/dines06232008.html

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) 06:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gail Dines. 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/20110303233816/http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Porn-debate-to-spice-up-Cambridge-Union.htm to http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Porn-debate-to-spice-up-Cambridge-Union.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226213052/http://news.avn.com/articles/Historic-Win-for-the-Porn-Industry-at-Cambridge-Debate-426978.html to http://news.avn.com/articles/Historic-Win-for-the-Porn-Industry-at-Cambridge-Debate-426978.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.counterpunch.org/dines06232008.html

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) 03:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Bias

I read the page and it appears to me to contain significant bias. The material provided is either neutral or negative. And it is written in a way that makes it appear the subject is among a very few people who think the crazy things she thinks because everyone knows porn viewing is perfectly healthy. The page looks like it was written by her critics and not by someone writing an encyclopedia. I don't know what to do about it now, but at least I'm bringing it to attention with his comment. I'll be keeping an eye here and may contribute from time to time. --Lawfare (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Lawfare, I agree that parts of it are not ideal, particularly the sourcing. I don't have time to edit it now, but I'll try to find time soon, and you're welcome to contribute yourself. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Lawfare (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)