Talk:Power of Women

6867 dyk views

Phyllis and Aristotle

File:Cadouin Aristoteles.jpg

I notice one of the carvings on Commons is dated to the 12th century (according to Wikipedia...), while we now say "The story of fr dates from the early 13th century and became the subject of popular poems, plays and moralizing sermons.

Do they mean a/the specific literary work? Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted. I cited Boitini & Torti p. 82 just to give the reader a heads-up on the Phyllis and Aristotle story (which is charming) for the time being until I can get an article start on it in the English wiki (nothing refers anywhere in it though there are plenty of good sources on the web). That page does give a 1225-1230 date for the French poem, but I gather current scholarship is that in turn is based on a German poem circa 1200 (rescued from the heating system of a convent it seems, DYK fodder there). So 12th century seems very early for the wood carving. I will do some research. Understand I am not an expert here, just the proverbial intelligent lawyer. The Sotheby's page for the Cranach painting I put in the gallery talks about the legend originally coming from India, but I have not found a source for that. KIC 8462852 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter from Flickr gives it as "(fin XVe-début XVIe siècle)" and reserves all rights to the Commons image ... sssh :). KIC 8462852 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This gives the 1500s. KIC 8462852 (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

French wiki gives Cadouin Abbey as 12th century, but the cloister decorated 15th to 16th century, so I think our Commons uploader simply in error. KIC 8462852 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - stylistically that works, given the Gothic foliage above. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Lede description of the topos

It is a great pity that that what has become the standard definition of the topos (for example it is quoted in Kendra Grimmett's 2014 Austin thesis) has been reverted by an editor (apparently anxious to protect their own edits) on the grounds that it refers to "feminine wiles" (but that was in Professor Aaij's article start right from the beginning and in fact remains in the present article in the Susan Smith quotation a couple of sentences later). The quotation was from H. Diane Russell's "Eva/Ave" ( a publication of the National Gallery of Art, Washington and The Feminist Press at the City University of New York) and I am restoring it with an extra sentence to satisfy the exacting scruples of an editor who really ought to know better (polite would be nice too).

The truth is that this article has lost its way after its enterprising start by Aaij, groundbreaking on Wikipedia in its own way one supposes. Not only is Susan Smith's famous thesis not directly cited, but her whole program is misrepresented (the point is that she showed the topos began in the decorative arts before moving into print-making).

I am encouraging a student (who knows the sources) to resume their edits here. I ask editors to extend them the usual courtesies.

Thank you. 128.90.94.37 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Since we already have "wiles" in a quotation, there is absolutely no need to have it in WP's voice in the first line. Who exactly is "anxious to protect their own edits"? The article has never suggested the topos began in prints, or anything like that. Merry Christmas! Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all your Ainsworth (2013) quote on a Cranach painting in fact cites Russell (1990) on the topos and was retained only as a courtesy to you as the original edit summary makes clear. I shall now remove it when I revert. The first line is not "in Wikipedia's voice". It is citing an authority everyone knowledgeable about the subject will recognize. If your community was as exacting as that, their articles would become a quote festival throughout. Many editors find these direct quotations you valorize irritating and indicative of weak editing (any fool can copy-paste). When I revert I shall quote Russell in the citation for the avoidance of all doubt.

I do hope this will satisfy your reservations. If you do feel prevailed once again to revert, you are not only reverting the lede definition but much other useful material contributed here. I shall take the time to restore that material, which will a real nuisance, and seek some form of arbitration to settle the dispute between us about the lede definition.

It is the thrust of the article I complain of, its emphasis on painting (in the new art history spearheaded by Susan Smith the entire visual arts tradition is given equal weight). That lede image should be replaced by a print, for example. I expect it arises partly as a consequence of copyright law and the free access culture Wikipedia is scrupulous to maintain. Efforts by the former editor to introduce an open access image of a three dimensional work alas came to nothing.

My festive season is over, but I naturally extend you the compliments of what I take is yours. 128.90.35.190 (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I see you have reverted nevertheless. I also notice my very talented young student has been indulging her own feminine wiles in a way that I can not entirely condone, delicious though that might be. At any rate she evidently can fend very adequately for herself. The rest you can have all to yourself. Plainly you are very committed to your contributions and who am I to doubt their worth? 199.48.244.24 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In your last revert summary you made a comment about "arsing" I did not understand. I assumed it referred to a typo I had made, and since I had already decided not to engage an edit war and had been in contact with my student, who flips you a cordial finger, I thought not to pursue it. But we did wonder about your status on Wikipedia. You had after all broken the three revert rule with impunity. So I made some inquiries and the situation changes. It seems you are a long-serving Wikipedian who champions women editors. You were a Wikipedian in residence for a period of six months last year at the Royal Society in the UK tasked with improving coverage of women's achievements in the sciences. You are quoted in The Guardian newspaper as saying "So you too can make sure women's achievements are written up, not written off".

But that does not seem to me to chime with your performance here regarding my student's effort, which you are reverting without properly trying to reach a consensus. Where is, for example, your response to my remark about Ainsworth in fact quoting Russell? Moreover in the early days of my student's editing you newbie baited her over a citation issue where you yourself were at fault and which in fact put my hard pressed student to some expense of time and effort trying to understand and accommodate your issue.

And then there is this "arsing" remark, which must be regarded as some kind of a challenge.

I'm going to restore my student's edits and ask you to properly address the issues I raise here before reverting again. 199.48.241.36 (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)