Talk:Against Our Will

Lead

Neljack, everything in the lead is a summary of other material in the article. The material is definitely not a BLP violation. The statement, "but many of her arguments have been rejected or criticized by scholars" is objectively true and perfectly easy to support. If you believe that the sourcing should be made clearer, that can definitely be done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to update this article. And have been going around in circles. I added info in draft form, got an error message, tried to fix that. Added new material and saved it. SuzeBrown (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)SuzeBrown

My sources are impeccable. I offered a long cite to the material on the summary ad reception of Against Our Will in 1975 but it seems to have been rejected. SuzeBrown (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)SuzeBrown

Thank you. Your edits were helpful, for the most part, although I have modified some of them. The exact number of pages an author spends discussing a subject is not a detail relevant to an encyclopedia article. Someone added a COI template to the lead of the article; I removed that, as apparently no evidence was provided to support it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I added it because SuzeBrown is only adding flattering information to an article about a book written by Susan Brownmiller. You don't see the similarity in names? Dammitkevin (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not make accusations of COI without good evidence, Dammitkevin. There is nothing wrong with adding information about positive reviews of the book, as a neutrally written article should reflect both positive and negative views of its topic, per WP:NPOV. It isn't appropriate to make assumptions about what someone's user name might or might not mean. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)