Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The lead

Anonymous IP editor who has been editing the lead, please do not remove information from the lead claiming that it is factually incorrect unless you can prove that it is so.

Don't think I did.162.83.134.173

In one of your edit summaries, you characterized your removal of a sentence as "false statement." It was not a false statement; Wollstonecraft did write in multiple genres. Awadewit 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Wollstonecraft&diff=120388865&oldid=120388585 as to what I was referring to.162.83.134.173

If you are referring to the internal comment about changing "British" to "English," that was because of a minor revert war that we were having and a long discussion on the talk page over the dialect of the page and whether MW should be classified as British or English (the issues seemed to get tied up together). Editors simply kept changing the page multiple times without discussing the issue, not realizing that we were in the middle of discussing it or had finished discussing it. You can read the discussions in the archives. The reason we had to revert to "shouting" with caps and mentioning vandalism is because editors would revert even though the internal comment said to discuss the change on the talk page first. I don't think it is a good idea to remove comments like that unless one knows the history of a page. There are often reasons for them. For example, we finally had to put a link in for "apposition" to wikitionary because so many editors kept changing it to "opposition," because they thought "apposition" wasn't a word. The internal comment warning them that "apposition" was indeed a word failed to convince them. Awadewit 01:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlike some pages on wikipedia, this page has been meticulously researched.

A++!162.83.134.173

Also, please do not alter the meaning of sentences in the lead (or elsewhere) unless you are prepared to back up your statements. For example, the lead originally stated that Wollstonecraft wrote in several different genres; she did, in fact, do this. The list of her works is provided at the bottom of the page and any biography will confirm this (I will use Todd as my source - it is in the bibliography of this article).

Never said she didn't. What I did said: "only notable works should be mentioned; many writers prose various works.." When I first read the intro, yesterday, I failed to see the reason "treatises, a travel narrative, a history of the French Revolution, a conduct book, and a children's book" are of any importance; she is "known for A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" and that piece of work is precisely what lead me to read about her. I ask "Why would a typical person want to know such frivolous works as a conduct book or a children's book?" ...nor does it need to be kept as there is a list of at the bottom.162.83.134.173

These works were not "frivolous" to Wollstonecraft. A Vindication of the Rights of Men was the first response to Burke and in a discussion with works like Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Her Female Speaker, Thoughts on the Education of Daughters and Original Stories were part of a concerted effort to write about the issues surrounding women and education (a key concern of the Vindication of the Rights of Woman). Her history of the French Revolution, which she was so dedicated to writing that she collected information at great risk to herself in France, she insisted on writing while pregnant and just after the birth of her first child. Must I go on? It is interesting that you didn't include her novels in this list. Just because the novel form is more familiar to modern audiences does not make it more important to eighteenth-century audiences or to Wollstonecraft. Also, the lead is trying to provide general information in a short space. I do not feel that listing Wollstonecraft's works in other genres is "frivolous" since she is known for being a writer. Awadewit 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I'll put in the body.162.83.134.173

Also the lead previously stated that Wollstoencraft's life story was more important than her works to the feminist movement. You changed the statement to "as important as." According to Cora Kaplan's essay in The Cambridge Companion to Wollstonecraft, cited in the article and in the bibliography, this is not the case.

Untrue. The intro originally said "Wollstonecraft's life has often received as much, if not more, interest than her writing," which implies "as much and maybe more; we don't know."

Based on Kaplan's essay, there should be more certainty to the iffy statement. This part should be rewritten.162.83.134.173

Based on that essay, I am not prepared to insert a statement of that level of certainty, that is why I wrote it with the "if." Literary scholarship is rarely that certain. Awadewit 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have other information, please provide it, otherwise please leave the information that is sourced to the scholarly works on Wollstonecraft intact. Finally, as Kaldari already pointed out to you in her edit summaries, using the second definition of a word is perfectly legitimate; and to say that Wollstonecraft "presaged" the feminist movement is far more accurate than to say that she was a part of it (as you did).

Well she was.. part. of. it. (See below)162.83.134.173

There was no feminist movement when she was alive.Awadewit 03:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movement#History, "The feminist movement reaches far back before the 18th century," and my interpretation of this is that the feminist movement includes her works, which was written when she was alive.162.83.134.173

It is too bad that that page does not cite its sources, but if you want to use that page as a reference, it is best to read the entire page. Note that it says The movement is generally said to have begun in the 19th century as people increasingly adopted the perception that women are oppressed in a male-centred society (see patriarchy). The feminist movement is rooted in the West and especially in the reform movement of the 19th century. The organized movement is dated from the first Women's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. John Stuart Mill, with the influence of his wife Harriet Taylor, made a considerable contribution with his work The Subjection of Women, in the mid-19th Century. I would be curious what scholarship you have to back up your contention that Wollstonecraft was part of the feminist movement. The scholarship that I have read on Wollstonecraft (some of which I quoted for this page and which I listed in the bibliography) either refers to her as a protofeminist or as a grandmother of feminism (if it refers to her as a feminist at all - please see the "feminism" section of the article); I haven't read anything saying she was part of a feminist movement. Please let me know what scholars you are reading. Thanks. Awadewit 00:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

lead changes

Several changes have been made to the article lead (diff). Some of these changes are grammatically questionable and some of them change the meaning of the sentences to various degrees. Anyone want to discuss them? Here are the obvious grammatical problems:

• "After two misfortune affairs..." - Unfortunate affairs would be the grammatically correct syntax, although I still prefer "ill-fated affairs" myself, as it implies an unhappy ending, rather than just unhappiness in general. Thoughts?

• Makes no sense with "misfortune" (a noun, not an adjective). I have already replaced it with "ill-fated" again. "Unfortunate" is not the right word, I agree. I'm willing to entertain other options. Awadewit 04:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a noun. Careless mistake on my part.

Ill-fated really doesn't "implies an unhappy ending." Some definitions:

• Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition: "ending in or doomed to disaster"
• Compact Oxford English Dictionary: "destined to fail or have bad luck."
• Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition: "1) having or destined to a hapless fate; 2) that causes or marks the beginning of misfortune."
• Cambridge International Dictionary of English: "unlucky and unsuccessful, often resulting in death"
• The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: "1) Destined for misfortune; doomed; 2) Marked by or causing misfortune; unlucky."
• Infoplease Dictionary: "1) destined, as though by fate, to an unhappy or unfortunate end: an ill-fated voyage; 2) bringing bad fortune."

Unfortunate is the synonym suggested by the dictionaries.

I honestly cannot begin to vouch for this description. If it causes "misfortune; unlucky" or brings "bad fortune," and is not cause by destiny or fate, I would simply use "unfortunate," in my humble opinion.162.83.134.173

Rather than trying to find a synonym, which is fruitless since you disagree with the premise of the word, why don't you read the article and then try to characterize Wollstonecraft's relationships in one word rather than listing all of these definitions. What do you think unites Wollstonecraft's unhappy affairs? What word or phrase encapsulates that? Awadewit 00:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Her early advocacy for women's equality, critiques on conventional femininity and the degradation of women is part of the feminist movement." - We're missing an "and" here and the verb and subject don't agree (subject is plural). Also we lose a lot of the meaning of the sentence by just saying they were "part of" the feminist movement. What we're trying to explain here is how Wollstonecraft's writing was a precursor to the feminist movement, i.e. it predated the movement,

I like that! Predated and precursor are great words as it is objective, fairly neutral, lacking the bias and possibly hype of mythological "presaged."162.83.134.173

but was something of an omen of things to come. I think the term "presaged" was fine, personally. Really, the ideal word to use there would be "portended" but it's something of an awkward word that no not everyone is familiar with.

I don't believe in foreshadowing and omens and witchcraft and ghosts. Sorry, I believe in SCIENCE and REASON and LOGIC and Real life. Sorry.162.83.134.173

I accept science and always attempt to follow the dictates of logic and reason, but "presage" is not always associated with witchcraft. According to definition 1b. in the Oxford English Dictionary, "presage" means "To be indicative or suggestive of; to be a natural precursor of, to give warning of." In the online version, they have several quotations to illustrate this meaning. I thought you would appreciate this one from 1816: "The rising of the mercury presages, in general, fair weather." Here is a more recent one (2005): "The harrowing constitutional process that was rapidly turning into a debacle that could have presaged a civil war." I don't think that there is anything unusual about how we are using this word. Ironically, the first definition the OED gives for "portend" is "to presage as an omen; to foretell by supernatural means" and the 1b. definition is "in weakened sense: to indicate beforehand; to give warning of." Awadewit 00:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kaldari 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have already changed this sentence as well (see previous post) since there was no feminist movement during the late eighteenth century. Actually, I believe the subject is "advocacy" right now, so the verb should be singular in this instance. If you add the "and" (Her early advocacy . . . and critiques . . . are), then it becomes plural. Again, I also like "presaged" and have reinserted it along with fixing the preposition. I agree with the meaning you want to convey. Fix away. This lead was just butchered. Awadewit 04:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Differing in thought is call "butchered." How wonderful...162.83.134.173

Hardly just a difference in thought. You introduced grammatical errors and information that is not supported by Wollstonecraft scholarship. Awadewit 00:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I added the "and" back so that the sentence at least makes sense grammatically. I'm still not sure about the substitution of "critiques" for "attacks" though. Does it really make sense to say she "critiqued" the degradation of women? Kaldari 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I think it makes sense to say she "critiqued" conventional femininity but not the degradation of women. Previously, I believe we had "attacks" because it works for both. We could say, "critiques conventional femininity" and "attacks the degradation of women," though. But what do you think of "Her early advocacy for women's equality and her critique of conventional femininity anticipate/presage the later feminist's movement's stark claims regarding the degradation of women." That way we suggest what in the feminist movement she is anticipating. Awadewit 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit wordy to me, and perhaps overly specific. I suppose mentioning both women's equality and the degradation of women is somewhat redundant anyway. What if we just changed it to: "Her early advocacy for women's equality and her critiques of conventional femininity presaged the later emergence of the feminist movement."? Kaldari 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How about "presaged the claims of the feminist movement"? I never really liked the "degradation of women" phrase anyway - it's such a cliche. Awadewit 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to use the term, but Awadewit is right, you are butchering the lead. Most of your edits so far have not been very helpful. For example, the edits you just made to the last paragraph of the lead have several problems: 1. the feminist movement is not "approaching", 2. "[fill in blank]" is absolutely not acceptable and bordering on vandalism, 3. The activists are mentioned in the article, they dont need to be listed in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of information presented in the article.

Why are you so intent on rewriting content that is already well written, has been reviewed and re-edited numerous times already, and is meticulouly researched? You would probably recieve a better reception if you suggested your changes on the talk page before editing the article. Just a suggestion. Kaldari 05:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead (again)

162.83.134.173, please stop editing the lead (I have a feeling you are the same person as 141.155.154.172) until you fully understand wikipedia's policies. You are introducting grammatical errors all over the lead:

• "primely" (not a word)
• "Her other major works includes Original Stories from Real Life (1788), Mary: A Fiction (1788), Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790), and deeply personal travel narratives."
• "Her early advocacy for women's equality, critique on conventional femininity, and opposition against the mistreatments of women is indicative of the approaching feminist movement."

You are introducting quotations without citations:

• "Wollstonecraft has been labeled the "grandmother of feminism."" The fact that I mentioned this on the talk page is not enough. You must find it in a book yourself if you want to include it.

You are leaving out information. Please note that this is a Featured article; that means that it has passed a somewhat rigorous set of peer reviews and represents the best wikipedia has to offer. It should therefore not be left in a draft state by editors. If you want to add this information, find it!

• "Feminist scholars and activists such as [fill in blank] have cited both her philosophical ideas and her personal life as important influences on their work."

You have also added a somewhat subjective statement; you said Wollstonecraft's affairs were "failed." We actually already rejected that word months ago because it is hard to prove that she thought they had failed. In fact, some scholars might argue Wollstonecraft got a lot out of her relationship with Imlay. Awadewit 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to change "presaged the later claims of the feminist movement" back to "presaged the later emergence of the feminist movement" since the whole point of the sentence originally was to let the reader know that Wollstonecraft's writing predated the existence of "feminism". The way it is worded now is ambiguous, i.e. maybe the feminist movement already existed but Wollstonecraft's writing only agreed with its "later" claims (second wave, etc). Kaldari 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the "presaged the later feminist movement"? I don't think you can "presage an emergence." That sounds a little odd, don't you think? Awadewit ^Talk 01:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What about "presaged the feminist movement, which emerged roughly half a century after Wollstonecraft's death."? That avoids being both "ambiguous" and "odd" and provides a bit of historical context. Do you think it's too much of a digression though? Kaldari 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. You could also say "organized feminist movement." Awadewit ^Talk 03:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Kaldari 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Thank you for protecting, Kaldari. What is it with people, anyway? :) Awadewit | talk 15:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has taught me a lot about human nature :) Kaldari 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The war of every editor against every editor? Awadewit | talk 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The case for indefinite semi-protection

I have placed this article on indefinite semi-protection per the following semi-protection policies: "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for... (1) articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism... (2) biographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that are not widely watchlisted". As of June 5, 2007, 187 of the last 500 edits have been made by anonymous IP addresses. Of those 187 edits, all but 15 have been reverted (most as blatant vandalism). The 15 good edits are summarized below:

• 5 edits by various IPs to revert vandalism
• 69.0.55.199 changed an ISBN number which was later changed again

• The IP editor noticed that there was a double ISBN (two different books had the same ISBN - I don't know how that happened). Unfortunately, the IP editor replaced the wrong ISBN with the incorrect edition of the book (they couldn't know what I had used, I suppose). Awadewit | talk 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• 71.106.87.110 added a fact tag which was later replaced with a citation

• The second and more important friendship was with Fanny Blood, whom Wollstonecraft credited with opening her mind. - This is the sentence. There were plenty of citations for the Fanny relationship for me, but I added yet another one for this IP editor. Awadewit | talk 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• 162.83.134.173 changed "slowly" to "gradually"
• 141.155.154.172 changed 3 words, added an external link, and removed an HTML comment

• Actually, this IP editor changed a lot of language in the article, most of which was not an improvement, in my opinion. (See discussion on the lead, above.) Awadewit | talk 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I only listed the changes they made which were accepted, as most of what this editor changed was later reverted (for good reason). Kaldari 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes, I see. I just wanted to make clear that they were disruptive as well. Awadewit | talk 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• 213.120.252.228 added the word "attempt"
• 213.60.60.30 added an interlanguage link
• 202.91.67.139 added an incorrect year which was later fixed

Hardly a compelling case for the usefulness of anonymous edits. Kaldari 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. This list represents 8% of the IP edits; they hardly represent a stunning contribution to the article and the time and effort it takes to prevent vandals from destroying the article do not balance out the gains, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since 100% of the anonymous edits to this article since it was unprotected have been vandalism, I am re-instating semi-protection indefinitely. Kaldari 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yorkshirewoman

The section about her being a Yorkshirewoman seems to be a distracting digression to me. We have just established the reader's interest in the family's financial problems and frequent relocations, but then we undercut the reader's sympathy by talking about her sense of belonging in Yorkshire and her "warm" childhood memories. Then we go back to talking about the financial problems and her abusive father. It seems a bit disjointed. Perhaps just removing the quote would help. What do you think? Kaldari 15:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I know what you mean - I was trying to be chronological and it didn't really work out. Go ahead and take it out, unless you can find a better place for it. Side note: What happened with the templates at the top of the page? Why is that line of code there, now? Awadewit | talk 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotation

What do you think about adding the somewhat length passage from Wollstonecraft's letters in which she describes seeing Louis led off to be executed and her own reaction? It really is quite a stunning passage. Awadewit | talk 09:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what quotation you refer to. Also, is the quotation about Wollstonecraft's baby copied correctly. It's a bit difficult to read. Kaldari 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Two keys over - oops. Fixed. Here is the execution quotation:

About nine o'clock this morning, the king passed by my window, moving silently along (excepting now and then a few strokes on the drum, which rendered the stillness more awful) through empty streets, surrounded by the national guards, who, clustering around the carriage, seemed to deserve their name. The inhabitants flocked to their windows, but the casements were all shut, not a voice was heard, nor did I see any thing like an insulting gesture.--For the first time since I entered France, I bowed to the majesty of the people, and respected the propriety of behaviour so perfectly in unison with my own feelings. I can scarcely tell you why, but an association of ideas made the tears flow insensibly from my eyes, when I saw Louis sitting, with more dignity than I expected from his character, in a hackney coach, going to meet death, where so many of his race have triumphed. My fancy instantly brought Louis XIV before me, entering the capital with all his pomp, after one of the victories most flattering to his pride, only to see the sunshine of prosperity overshadowed by the sublime gloom of misery. I have been alone ever since; and, though my mind is calm, I cannot dismiss the lively images that have filmmed my imagination all the day.--Nay, do not smile, but pity me; for, once or twice, lifting my eyes from the paper, I have seen eyes glare through a glass-door opposite my chair, and bloody hands shook at me. Not the distant sound of a footstep can I hear. . . . I wish I had even kept the cat with me!--I want to see something alive; death in so many frightful shapes has taken hold of my fancy.--I am going to bed--and, for the first time in my life, I cannot put out the candle.

She wrote this to Joseph Johnson. Awadewit | talk 18:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit lengthy for a quote of tangential interest. Probably better to leave it out I would think. Kaldari 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A shortened version, perhaps? Awadewit | talk 17:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)