Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Twentieth-century feminist scholars

If we are restricting this statement to the 20th Century, the verb tense should be changed from present perfect to past tense. Does it make sense to restrict this to the 20th Century or can we safely say that Wollstonecraft's influence is still widely cited today as well? Kaldari 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think MW has had such an wide impact on twenty-first century feminists. More of an academic revival. Awadewit | talk 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that's right -- certainly MW has an influence in historical studies, but not so much an influence in feminist theory and modern feminist thought per se. As long as we're talking about tenses, however, I'll add that the tenses periodically bother me in this article & in the Vindication articles. Tenses in the individual sentences are correct, but within paragraphs tense changes are distracting (to me, at least). --lquilter 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you guys agree that the tense in the Twentieth-century sentence should be changed to past tense, or is the Twentieth-century still considered recent enough to justify the present perfect tense? Kaldari 20:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know about the twentieth-century sentence - that's an interesting question. I think we are talking about as a past event, so maybe it should go in the past tense?
  • As to the changing tenses, I thought we had aimed for past tense when discussing MW and present tense (the "literary present") when discussing her works. Thoughts on this? Awadewit | talk 03:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that past tense for MW, and present tense for literary works is house style (and good sense). (As a matter of writing, though, it sometimes leads to tense-weirdness in a paragraph. This is probably an insoluble problem, avoided only by clever editing.) --lquilter 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Past tense for MW and present tense for works, although in the case of this causing awkward sentences or paragraphs I think we should be flexible. Kaldari 15:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is still bothering me. I think the tense isn't really the problem. The problem is that the paragraph is no longer unified. Originally, the paragraph was about the importance of Mary Wollstonecraft today. Now it starts off talking about the importance of Mary Wollstonecraft today and then goes backwards to talk about her influence in the Twentieth Century. This seems very awkward to me. Either the paragraph should be rearranged, or we should change the sentence back to the less specific "Feminist scholars", or we should remove the last sentence entirely, IMO. I would favor changing it back to how it was before. It is still completely accurate, just less specific, and it reads much better, IMO. Thoughts? Kaldari 15:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because the sense of the paragraph drifts. How about? Today Wollstonecraft is considered one of the founding feminist philosophers. Her early advocacy of women's equality, her critiques of conventional femininity, and the way she conducted her personal life are acknowledged influences on both scholars and activists in the organized modern-day feminist movement. Or similar? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Slight revision with parallel structure: Today Wollstonecraft is considered one of the founding feminist philosophers. Her early advocacy of women's equality, her critiques of conventional femininity, and her "experiments in living", as Virginia Woolf termed them, are acknowledged influences on members of the modern feminist movement. - We are losing precision (and "presaged", Kaldari!) but perhaps that is just as well in a lead. :( Awadewit | talk 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Expansion of paragraph: After Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published a Memoir (1798) of her life, disclosing the details of her unorthodox lifestyle; these revelations destroyed Wollstonecraft's reputation, which did not recover for a century. Today Wollstonecraft is considered one of the founding feminist philosophers. Her early advocacy of women's equality, her critiques of conventional femininity, and her "experiments in living", as Virginia Woolf termed them, are acknowledged influences on members of the modern feminist movement. Awadewit | talk 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't like using quotes in the lead, especially when they are redundant with body text later in the article. Kaldari 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought it was a little better than "life story" or "biography" or some such thing. Do you have a suggestion? Awadewit | talk 21:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I honestly feel that the current wording for the paragraph works well except for the "Twentieth Century" part. 1) It seems overly specific for the context (basically a statement that Wollstonecraft is one of the most influential figures in feminism, generally). 2) I don't like the idea of implying that Wollstonecraft's legacy was limited to the Twentieth Century. It seems reasonable to me that her legacy will still be quite substantial to present and future feminists (whether activists or scholars). Remember, we will have people reading this article who know nothing at all of feminism or Wollstonecraft. Before we start explaining specifics to them, we need to impart the sense of how broad and pervasive Wollstonecraft's influence on feminism is. As she is arguably the most famous feminist of all time (to the general public), it seems misleading to imply that her legacy is limited to the Twentieth Century. (We're not just talking about the academic world here.) 3) It causes weirdness with the verb tenses in that paragraph. P.S.) I like adding your sentence about the Memoirs. Kaldari 22:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you post your version of the paragraph for ease of comparison? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 22:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
After Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published a Memoir (1798) of her life, disclosing the details of her unorthodox lifestyle; these revelations destroyed Wollstonecraft's reputation, which did not recover for a century. Today Wollstonecraft is considered to be one of the founding feminist philosophers. Her early advocacy of women's equality and her critiques of conventional femininity presaged the organized feminist movement. Feminist scholars and activists have often cited both her philosophical ideas and her personal life as important influences on their work. Kaldari 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Now it feels like we're missing a sentence. How did she get from tattered reputation to foundational feminist philosopher? We need a connector, I think. Awadewit | talk 22:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Kaldari 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another version: After Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published a Memoir (1798) of her life, disclosing the details of her unorthodox lifestyle; these revelations destroyed Wollstonecraft's reputation, which did not recover for a century. However, with the emergence of the feminist movement at the turn of the twentieth century, Wollstonecraft's advocacy of women's equality and critiques of conventional femininity became increasingly relevant. Today Wollstonecraft is considered to be one of the founding feminist philosophers and feminist scholars and activists often cite both her philosophical ideas and her personal life as important influences on their work. - I don't really like "relevant" - other ideas? Awadewit | talk 23:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I would probably keep the last sentence as two separate sentences though. Kaldari 00:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There's some redundancy, and too much detail. This is only an introductory, scene-setting paragraph. How about: After Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published a Memoir (1798) of her life, revealing disclosing the details of her unorthodox lifestyle; these revelations destroyed Wollstonecraft's which destroyed her reputation. , which did not recover for a century. However, with the emergence of the feminist movement at the turn of the twentieth century, Wollstonecraft's approach to life advocacy of women's equality and critiques of conventional femininity became increasingly relevant. Today Wollstonecraft is considered to be regarded as one of the founding feminist philosophers and feminist scholars and activists often cite both her philosophical ideas work and her personal life lifestyle as important influenceson their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Davies (talk • contribs) 07:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the lead is supposed to be a standalone summary of the article (WP:LEAD). I think a little detail is acceptable. What about:
After Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published a Memoir (1798) of her life, revealing her unorthodox lifestyle, which destroyed her reputation for a century. However, with the emergence of the feminist movement at the turn of the twentieth century, Wollstonecraft's advocacy of women's equality and critiques of conventional femininity became increasingly relevant/useful. Today Wollstonecraft is regarded as one of the founding feminist philosophers and feminists often cite both her life and work as important influences. Awadewit | talk 21:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me though I think "inadvertantly destroyed" might be better. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
New version added with "inadvertently". Awadewit | talk 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Pity. "Inadvertantly" is quite funny, like "highly litterate". :)) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 22:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally ...

The article is a bit light on atmosphere. Perhaps mentioning the two weeping willows Godwin planted at the grave in st Pancras; Tomalin's suggestion that Godwin was urged to tell the "plain unvarnished truth" in Memoir by Johnson to pre-empt tabloid-style exposés, MW's views of divorce, and abortion etc. What thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 22:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think that too much "atmosphere" of that sort is really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Tree-planting is a trivial detail and the "plain unvarnished truth" bit is better suited to the Memoirs page itself. Moreover, MW's views on divorce and abortion were not central to her thought, according to the most important scholars on MW. Awadewit | talk 23:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Funnily enough, the thing that isn't clear is specifically what MW actually advocated or why this was so shocking at the time. What may have been lost is that she was a radical as well as being a feminist. (Oh, I disagree that the weeping willows, for instance, is trivial: it speaks volumes about Godwin.) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, not much that Wollstonecraft was saying in the VRW wasn't being said by others; the fact that she and Hannah More advocated many of the same positions makes MW look much less "progressive" (or conversely, More much more progressive - see Mitzi Myers' article about this). VRW wasn't shocking at all - you might read the VRW page. That is why it is so problematic to call MW a feminist at all. Calling her a "radical" works for eighteenth-century history, but it is slightly deceptive, I think, for today's readers. It is always important to keep in mind that MW's reputation has been dramatically colored by the various biographies, etc. generated over the centuries. Please remember that before all of the details of her life were known, she was considered "liberalish" but hardly "shocking". It was not her positions on women's education that were considered shocking at the time - it was her love affairs and her illegitimate child. People reinterpreted her writings after they found out about her life and tended to ascribe claims to her that she never made. If you think the willows speak volumes about Godwin, then perhaps we should add that to the Godwin page? Awadewit | talk 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proofread for FT (per open request)

I've proofread the article, corrected a few minor spelling mistakes, and copyedited the last para of "Early life" to try to remove some repetition and convoluted sentence structure (some still remains, but I didn't want to disrupt too much). Since the article deals with a British subject, I've also changed some instances of American spelling to their British equivalents.

If I had to suggest anything, it would be to copyedit with a view to removing all those commas. I rather like the structure as it is, but I'm also aware that modern usage prefers simpler sentences...

Hope this helps ;) All the best, EyeSereneTALK 12:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As you can see here, the AE/BE debate has not been resolved yet. Awadewit | talk 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that - sorry! I was going by what I understood to be WP policy regarding national variations, but I have no wish to inflame anything. Please revert if necessary! EyeSereneTALK 09:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: This is what I meant when I said that, I believed these articles would go to BE without any intervention whatsoever from those of us presently involved in the debate. Because the current policy is fairly clear, and a goodly number of wikipedians like to go around and do relatively minor copy-edits like this. --lquilter 13:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Except that this very kind editor decided to proofread the article because of a notice on my talk page. It was not out of the blue. Awadewit | talk 15:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I raised this today at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Intro section. In the example I gave I reversed the nationalities to depersonalize it. Applying it to Mary Wollstonecraft, BrEng must be used. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think one person's opinion represents a consensus of the community. Also, I think it is interesting that that particular user himself commented on several of the MW FACs but did not raise the issue of national dialect. Awadewit | talk 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to revisit that discussion. --ROGER DAVIES TALK
WP:ENGVAR is consensus and it specifies BrEng for topics with strong national ties to Britain. It is beyond dispute that although MW has ties elsewhere the British ones are strongest. This article was converted from BrEng to AmEng by a very small group of editors who had no real consensus for their decision. WP:CONSENSUS has this to says: "A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." This article has now been converted back to BrEng as a result of good faith edits by an impartial editor relying on WP:ENGVAR. That is a good place to leave it. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Show me this "conversion" you're talking about (from British English to American English). I am aware of no such thing occuring. Kaldari 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's one. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The only example you can cite is me changing "favour" to "favor"? First of all, I thought this was a legitimate spelling mistake, as "favour" appears very odd to my Americanized eyes (far more so than say "defence" or "organisation"). Secondly, the version of the article you are referring to was mixed AmEng/BritEng ("defense", but "labour") and ended up being deleted as plagiarism anyway. None of the body of that article exists in the current article. The "conversion" you speak of was not from BritEng to AmEng, it was from plagiarized to not plagiarized. Kaldari 21:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It started in BrEng. The article was based on text from the introduction of the 1889 Cassell's edition of Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Plagiarism of non-copyright material is not an issue (the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and DANFS, for example). As the topic has strong national ties to the UK, to de-hybridize it, it should have gone >BrEng not >AmEng. You and Awadewit put your case on the MOS talk pages in March to change this six-year-old guideline but it was rejected. It was pointed out then, and many times since, that the guidelines about national affiliations are in place so that tiresome turf wars can be avoided. Your insistence since then on AmEng in topics with strong British affilations is starting to look highly POV. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I think everyone would be happier and more productive if we dropped this debate, leaving the Wollstonecraft articles as they are. Perhaps we could revisit the question in January? That said, I did notice that Cúchulainn and John Lennon are both written in BrE, despite their being Irish and international, respectively; the only usage of AmE I noticed was "major factor" instead of "majour factour". ;) Also, it is possible to endure an AmE→BrE conversion for an American publication without much suffering, no matter how ridiculous and petty it might seem at the time. In my opinion, people with extraordinary skills should not waste their time on trifling debates; grander things await, like squeezing oneself into a ball and rolling towards some overwhelming question... :) Willow 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I certainly feel too sick to want to engage in this debate anymore. I have to figure out a way to teach my class with no voice. Computer-voice simulation? Awadewit | talk 16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm told gargling with aspirin helps. I'm pleased to see that you've nevertheless managed to bring forward your plans for a Mary Wollstonecraft featured topic. Well done. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Trying to cheer myself up. I've been sick for a week now. Awadewit | talk 12:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, strong, milky tea with a slug of whisky (or whiskey) is very, um, therapeutic. :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
American Sign Language, of course! :) It's a beautiful and expressive language, and I'll bet many of your students speak it already, since it sometimes counts towards the high-school foreign language requirement nowadays. ASL also reminds me of the Neanderthals in Thursday Next, since lying in ASL seems rather hard to do.
Shall we all agree to postpone this AmE/BrE debate until Awadewit feels better? British sense of fair play, and lions don't eat, and all that? ;) With affectionate wishes for a comfortable but sloooowww (largo ma molto troppo) recovery, Willow 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There'll never be a good time to discuss this, I'm afraid. The lines in the sand were drawn, as far as I can see, back in February/March and have shown no signs - despite many discussions with many editors - about moving. The core problem is Awadewit's insistence on ring-fencing Awadewit articles on British topics in AmEng. I have no problem with Awadewit writing in AmEng: it's the ring-fencing of the topic in perpetuity in AmEng that I take issue with. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. See Talk:Joseph Priestley#Preparations for FAC. Since I am not the sole editor/maintainer of that article and other people have contributed to it, I proposed a change to BE before FAC. Another editor felt it was unnecessary. I have also proposed a BE "translation" for the Jane Austen page that I am currently working on because Austen is, you know, second to Shakespeare over there and I have no doubt that many other editors will be helping out with the Austen article once we post the draft. The point is, which I have repeatedly made, except for the main MW article, no one is working on the articles except myself (as far as I know). It is just so much easier to maintain them in AE. Inevitably I would forget about the BE spelling. Awadewit | talk 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it's purely a practical consideration with the MW series, I'm very happy to help with the BrEng. As I've already mentioned, the period interests me greatly (particularly the political dimension). I'm also very happy to leave this until after the series becomes a featured topic so you'll have the satisfaction of getting them there in AmEng. (Why isn't Jane Austen already in BrEng, by the way?) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
{PS: by virtue of his flight to the States, Joseph Priestley is fine in either BrEng or AmEng. I'm indiffent either way. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
I think JP probably does have "strong national ties" to Britain. He never wanted to leave and always wanted to return. He never really liked America and he did nothing of note here/there. :) Awadewit | talk 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason the Austen draft is not in BE is because User:Simmaren and I write in AE. When we finish the draft and post it, though, I'll be sure to contact you. :) Awadewit | talk 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I shall send for madeleines and limeleaf tea. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
puzzled question. Given that there is a good version in consistent style, why bother? If it were written in Australian English even, it wouldn't bother me. The simplest rule is that once an article is established in a single style, leave it. The effort would be better spent in improving it or related articles in more substantial ways. I work in the RW with people in both countries, and in answering a letter or posting I find I automatically reply in whatever style I'm addressed in. It is not among the things that matter. Clarity and accuracy are the things that matter. 08:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

more info

you know where u have the name and a picture of her on the right hand side on the top of the article?

I think that u should put more infor ther like date and place of birth/death and also other info like in other bio articles

--- Culdin

POV, or something?

This seems to me that it is a little biased. Personally, I agree with the statement, but it's an opinion. This is in the second paragraph "After two complicated and heart-rending affairs..." This just seems a little strange for an encyclopedia. Generally, it's not too bad, but it's right in the beginning of the article, too. Any help? 24.151.101.55 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This was the result of some extended wrangling over the wording, thus it probably isn't ideal (too many cooks...). The original wording was "After two ill-fated affairs...". Does that sound any better or worse? Any alternative suggestions? Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We could simply be clinical and say "emotionally-draining"? --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
None of these seem very eloquent, do they? I'm still thinking. Awadewit | talk 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The Literary Encyclopedia uses "infatuation", a word I definitely remember from the biographies as well. What do we think about something along those lines? Awadewit | talk 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
For eloquence, I stand by the original wording ("ill-fated affairs"). How would you propose using "infatuation"? Kaldari (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't think of anything, which is why I said "something along those lines". :) Awadewit | talk 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I like "ill-fated" better than "emotionally-draining". It has more of a tragic ring to it - she did try to commit suicide because of these affairs - they were a bit more than "emotionally draining", I think. Awadewit | talk 16:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The original objection here is about the non-encyclopedic nature of "heart-rending"; that it expresses an opinion and elicits an emotional response from the reader. "Emotionally-damaging", "psychologically-destructive", are descriptive and avoid this. "Ill-fated" is just a bit purple prose. Your mileage may vary :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't ever be a bit poetic. Awadewit | talk 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[Chuckle] We live in a(n), um, prosaic world. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever read the Encyclopedia Britannica (especially the older editions)? It's full of colorful evocative language. I suppose, however, that such writing is frowned upon for Encyclopedias these days, which would explain why the Wikipedia article on love is worse than terrible. Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, early Britannica is fabulous stuff, with a stellar list of contributors. Oh, and love is astounding. I would have thought it impossible to do a bad job with such promising material (the graphic in the intro should be taken out and shot). --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Perhaps we could be allowed one evocative word: ill-fated. Awadewit | talk 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Evoke away. I'm not fussed either way.--ROGER DAVIES talk 17:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can o' worms

As Roger Davies performed a very generous act for me off-wiki, I thought it would a nice gesture to convert all of the MW articles into BE for him. No one else seems to edit the other articles, so I already converted the other articles. However, this article seems to actually have a little cohort of editors. I was wondering what everyone thought of the conversion. Awadewit | talk 01:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Quel surprise, but I'm in support of the change to BE. --Lquilter (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

worshipful epithets

Worshipful epithets are also a violation of the Encyclopedia's policy on neutrality. Please eschew them. --VKokielov (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have reverted your changes for the meantimes. It does not appear that you removed "worshipful" epithets. Rather you changed the meaning of the introduction. To change the meaning of the lead to statements such as Today feminists regard her as one of the founding feminist philosophers and often cite her work as a source and her life as an example, which means that only feminists see her as founding feminist philosopher, is a bit misleading. Why don't we discuss what changes you want to make here first? The current lead was the work of a consensus. I'm sure we can find a version that you find acceptable as well. Awadewit | talk 03:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't see any worshipful epithets in the original, and thought the replacement text was not nearly as well written. What specific "worship" type phrasing is at issue, VKokielov? --Lquilter (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Mea culpa, you're right. I changed "is regarded" into "feminists regard." But that's also what I meant. Regarded by whom? The passive voice is generally an evasion, and Wikipedia isn't any exception. Here, where it is not ironic or forceful (i.e. nothing is suggested to stand behind the missing subject), it seems to say "everyone -- even you." That's not right. --VKokielov (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would contend that that assumption is correct. Wollstonecraft is universally regarded as a founding feminist philosopher. In fact, that wording seems quite conservative to me. You can find numerous instances in literature of Wollstonecraft being referred to as the "founder of feminism".[1][2][3][4][5] Kaldari (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you grant that the phrase issues a compliment? But if it issues a compliment, let it come out with it directly: "Many [i.e., not all!] authors consider her the founder of feminism." Then tack on that long list of citations. --VKokielov (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay, first some minor points: Some people would consider it an insult to be a founder of feminism, but surely that depends on how one thinks of feminism. And, no, I don't think that being considered a founder of something is necessarily complimentary or otherwise. Also, note, not "the" founder, but "a" founder, and it's not just "authors" who consider it. Those nits picked and tossed aside, I'm not sure what we get from vaguing it up as "many": Is there in fact a significant thread of people who consider Wollstonecraft not a founder of feminist thought, that we need to allude to in the "many"? I'm not aware of any controversy about this point, and if the only reason for changing it is that you think it sounds complimentary -- well, I just don't agree that it's a POV "compliment" to state a general consensus about someone's historical influence. It sounds weasely to me to say "many" when there's no there there behind the not-many. --Lquilter (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As I perceive it, we are dealing with two categories of people. Namely:

  • those who take interest in her, and
  • those who are indifferent to her.

The first category falls into two subcategories: those who are for her and those who are against her.

Now please tell me, how many people fall in each category, do you suppose? Do you suppose that more people take interest in her than are indifferent to her? I say that to use the passive voice here is to raise her to heights which she doesn't deserve. And if there is a good number of people who are indifferent to her, then where is the courtesy in dragging them into the affair and speaking in their name? It leaves the wrong impression; it makes this article seem like it is speaking for a party. --VKokielov (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You've suggested another solution -- a very subtle one. Find out, or tell me how to find out, who the other founders of feminist philosophy are, and list some of them beside her name. Then it will be clear and fair; she will be in their company by association, and we will not have to make explicit mention of it. --VKokielov (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Other points:

  • "Important" to whom? Again to the people who aren't indifferent to her.
  • "Important influences": I think the right way to do this is to find a feminist or two, seat their names next to "feminists," and show where they call her an important influence.--VKokielov (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Listing every group that believes Wollstonecraft is a founding feminist philosopher would be silly: feminists, Wollstonecraft scholars, philosophers, etc. As has been pointed out above, this is not a controversial point. We do not take each and every person's POV into account - see WP:NPOV.
  • This article is not about feminism or feminists philosophers - it is about Mary Wollstonecraft. It does not need a list of founding feminist philosophers in the lead. The lead, per WP:LEAD, is supposed to be a summary of the article. Such details are therefore, unnecessary.
  • Indicating that Wollstonecraft was important only to one or two feminists named in the lead implies that she was not important to many more than that. The language of the lead is more accurate as it now stands than if we said "Feminist X said MW was an influenced her". Big deal that MW influenced one person.
  • Have you read the rest of the article and seen the rest of the citations, by the way? It does have citations to scholarly sources. The lead is a summary of what appears in the rest of the article. Awadewit | talk 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In the lede you don't have to add cites; the lede is much better to summarize the material in the rest of the article, where it clearly discusses Wollstonecraft's generally acknowledged role as a foundational feminist thinker. ... I am curious, VKokielov, if you have some cites or evidence suggesting controversy around this point. We really shouldn't intimate that there is doubt if there's not. Lquilter (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You must step aside for a second and pretend you are a stranger coming to this article without any point of view at all. Let us suppose that this article wasn't about Mary Wollstonecraft, but about, say, Ivan the Terrible. Suppose, in the introduction, I wrote: "Ivan the Terrible is widely regarded as the liberator of Russia and the man who set Russia free from the tyranny of the Tartars." You will object at once to "tyranny". I will remove it. What do we have left? Ivan the Terrible liberated Russia. We do not mention that he murdered his closest advisors, one by one; that he threw himself on every innocent who stood in his way; that he would sooner sacrifice his mother than his power. No; all we say is that he liberated Russia. And what happens then? You, who are indifferent and don't know about Ivan the Terrible, will at once conclude that he was a national hero of the Russians. And you will conclude it, not because you have any grounds to conclude it, but because it looks out at you from the article; it is the first thing you see. What then?

You will tell me that the article I told you about will not get written today -- and you will be right; today it would not be written, because tyranny and the menacing Church is out, and democracy and natural law is in. But if Wikipedia existed in 1600, that is the article you would see there.

I am not asking you to call her a criminal. God knows she is not that. But you must be fair to your reader; you must imagine that he is innocent or indifferent, and may believe everything you tell him. I don't think that she did anything worthy of this kind of throne-carrying. Mollify the introduction so it will not leave the impression that she is a hero or a genius. --VKokielov (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the fairest thing to the reader would be to say what academic sources say, and that's what this article does. Your Ivan example isn't a fair comparison, no bones about it. Wrad (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I will explain my antipathy to her, in plain terms. It is not grounded in abstraction; nothing which is grounded in abstraction is worth talking about -- we are flesh and blood, after all. What turns me against her is the company she kept and the things she did. The Romantics were full of air; that is conceded everywhere. But they were also -- dare I say it? -- immoral. They were immoral because they took base actions and exalted them, and did it in the most evasive of ways. Read Mark Twain's article "In defense of Harriet Shelley" for a sample. Wollstonecraft was not a Romantic, but she abided in their company. I do not believe that everything is relative; I believe in absolute morality. I believe that to leave your husband (or your wife!) because you have a distaste for him or her is immoral, and I believe we have grounds to suppose she did it, by the company she kept and the things she wrote. Not to mention the social stratum to which she belonged. --VKokielov (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Academic sources aren't the only sources. --VKokielov (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No, but they are the best sources. It sounds to me like you're got a beef with MW and her morals. I don't blame you, but wikipedia isn't really the place for that. The article discusses some of the things that "turn her off" to some. It states them pretty plainly without making judgements. That's the way it should be. Wrad (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Your "antipathy", however founded, is not a reliable source that supports the change you propose. Moreover, weakening the description of her as a founder of feminism is not going to convey the objections you present. If your objections are not merely personal but are sourced, and you feel that is not represented in the article, then please provide sources so other editors can assess them. --Lquilter (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

as usual

We diverge so basically that there is nothing for it but for me to withdraw. I am not vainglorious or vain; I have said what I meant to say, and you have heard me. The article and introduction isn't the point here. But I tell you that there will come a time when the merciful and all-accomodating academic point of view will dissolve in the West. I can tell you even now that in the East it was never there, because in the East we ate crap -- all of us, all the time. Eating crap is conducive to seeing what really matters in life. Adieu. --VKokielov (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation, but I really don't think that your views are all that unusual. There are a lot of westerners who'd agree with you. I don't think it hurts anyone but you to blame your problems in negotiation on "those darn westerners". I can guarantee you that there are plenty of eastern academics who are just as "unmerciful" as western ones. Please don't make wikipedia an east vs. west battleground for yourself. Wrad (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Were Wollstonecraft a contemporary figure, I think your argument would carry more weight, as the article would be more about the controversies (and criticisms) of her life, rather than being about her importance to history (and the development of feminism in particular). Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Western academics and Westerners are quite apart. And it is the academics or the fans of academics who write the Wikipedia articles. That's only natural; but it bends the encyclopedia where it ought to be straight. Not to mention the fact that that old curse, the cattle-brand, is still part and parcel of the Western consciousness, and somehow it has made its way into academics. Somehow, if you express doubt that the feminists are always right, you've already beaten your wife to death in the eyes of the academics. --VKokielov (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make these arguments, I suggest you do so at WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft is a place to develop the Mary Wollstonecraft article, not a SOAPBOX for views about academia, feminism, "the West", and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)