Talk:Edith Pringle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Flag
Portal
 Edith Pringle is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

[edit] Cleanup

PoV pervades article, largely via activist jargon, e.g. "rights" and "progressive" reflect how i'd describe her goals to my allies, but you might use "privileges" and "radical" instead. Excessive use of hdgs suggests desire to shout, perhaps in order to exaggerate significance of her details.
--Jerzy•t 11:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "Divorce" as a transitive verb is seldom encyclopedic.
  1. The account of one party to a divorce, who claims to be the divorcer (&/or of their sympathizers, even if they think they have info too reliable to justify being precise about what they know and what they've heard) must be presumed not credible. Perhaps the primary source is seldom sealed, but secondary sources are unlikely, and even if no official fees apply, the barriers to verifying the literal fact of who was the complainant may include the choice between travel and significant expenditure. This means we must presume the statement is unverifiable. (You might succeed in overcoming those presumptions, but you'll have truly earned the congratulations i will then offer.)
  2. The literal fact, even if verified, is unencyclopedic. Within living memory, most industrialized societies provided this legal situation: Suppose Albert and Bonnie were married, but agreed in wanting A, B, or both to be able to marry someone else. It would be in practice a legal necessity for one to publicly accuse the other of adultery, and the accused to forgo denying it in court; as a social necessity in this case of mutual consent, it would be she accusing him, even if she were the only adulterer or if there had been no adultery. (Yes, children, there were some failed but adultery-free marriages; there probably still are.) Such a situation is the most extreme case where the identity of the complainant conveys nothing that is both reliable and interesting. Divorce-law reform (whoops, excuse my using that PoV term) is at least widespread, but identity of divorce complainants is still far from useful info.
If your point is that she's been wronged by one or more men she's welcomed into her life, and that's informed her activism, you can't verify that either, but you may be able to verify that she says that. If so, it may be encyclopedic in her case, and we can decide that on the merits of the individual case, once the argument is made.
--Jerzy•t 13:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"divorced" is fairly standard terminology, even in the (dreaded) transitive sense. It is the 21st century, after all, and one would assume (quite rightly, I suppose) that to "divorce" someone would no longer carry the stigma of either a red letter A or a black eye.

I've tried a little edit. Less headlines, less adjectives. Maybe that helps? Resonanteye 14:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

ok then. apparently the bad grammar and editing stays for now.Resonanteye
There has to be a way to use the npov terminology you have here in a way that is less awkward grammatically. Shall I try again? --Resonanteye
Better I hope. Same words, smoother phrasing. I'd like your feedback if you have any, as I'm an old proofreader but a new wikipedian. -- Resonanteye 15:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)