Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 1

message: ===Suspected Plagiairism===
There are hints that portions of this article seems ripped from a centennial biography on Mary Wollstonecraft.  Of note, the article mentions "these points have been conceeded in a world that has become a century older."  This book was published over TWO centuries ago, in 1791.
===Flaws===
There are numerous small neglects in the text also.  It mentions Wollstonecraft published an Answer.  In fact, she published the first.  The fact that a woman raised voice first on the issue may have emboldened more than a few.
:Right. I love this article, as it is very informative on a very important early feminist. I fear, however, that: its style is not very encyclopedic, certain statements may border on unqualified POV, and a few facts seem to be simply incorrect. I'm doing a little research for another article concerning feminism at the moment, so I'm planning to make contributions to this article at the same time, but I'd like to know what other contributors think about this article in its current form. AdmN 17:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is too little in this article about her thoughts and ideas. very informative as a biography, though/ marxmax
It also reads like she had two daughters.. one with her de facto husband, and one with her married husband, although only Mary Shelley is named as being her daughter.
According to A History of Britain (see below), she died of septicaemia.  Is it medically correct to say that she succumbed to puerperal fever?  24.5.54.111 22:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of original article, shortcomings.

message: There are numerous small neglects in the text also.  It mentions Wollstonecraft published an Answer.  In fact, she published the first.  The fact that a woman raised voice first on the issue may have emboldened more than a few.
:Right. I love this article, as it is very informative on a very important early feminist. I fear, however, that: its style is not very encyclopedic, certain statements may border on unqualified POV, and a few facts seem to be simply incorrect. I'm doing a little research for another article concerning feminism at the moment, so I'm planning to make contributions to this article at the same time, but I'd like to know what other contributors think about this article in its current form. AdmN 17:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is too little in this article about her thoughts and ideas. very informative as a biography, though/ marxmax
It also reads like she had two daughters.. one with her de facto husband, and one with her married husband, although only Mary Shelley is named as being her daughter.
According to A History of Britain (see below), she died of septicaemia.  Is it medically correct to say that she succumbed to puerperal fever?  24.5.54.111 22:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flaws

message: At Wikimedia Commons I have made a note that the image that has been used here seems to be mis-identified. As the declared source of this image indicates, it appears to be an image not of Mary Wollstonecraft herself, but of her daughter Mary Shelley, the the author of Frankenstein, and should be renamed there and replaced here, preferably with another image that could be uploaded to the Commons. I am removing it for now. ~ Kalki 18:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity of woman in image.

message: OK, it looks like there are two separate accusations of copyright violation that occured with this article. The first accusation of copyright violation was made in June 2005. A copyvio notice was added to the article in early July. On July 17, 2005, SlimVirgin rewrote the intro from scratch and then deleted the rest of the article. On July 22, 2005, Cate8 inexplicably stated that she still suspected there were copyright violations in the article, even though the article had been reduced to a stub. No response was made to Cate8's accusation. The article remained a stub until November 3, 2005, when Drmillar wrote an entirely new (and rather lengthy) article. The article has remained mostly unchanged since then, although on August 12, 2006, SlimVirgin reverted the intro back to the original stub intro that she had written in July 2005. Kaldari 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviewing the copyvio issues

message: The writing in this is a bit rich and POV. Not sure what to do about it, because there's a lot of it and it's good, but it's not encyclopedic. Any thoughts anyone? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edits

message: Could you please be more explicit about your sense of the genre as "encyclopedic"? In the OED the term denotes "universal in knowledge, very full of information, comprehensive." And therefore, I think the biography should be in the article. Could you please give feedback, perhaps we could improve the biography entry rather than simply removing it from the article.
Also, the total removal of the Bibliography and Introduction I contributed is unethical according to Wikipedia standards.  I took the original introduction on the stub, and re-worked it to maintain the useful information; "slimvirgin" on the other hand, has completely removed the work, instead of building upon and editing the article to achieve the best from both parties.  
Examples of how I intertwined our two Introduction articles are as follows: 
1)“Died of puerperal fever”, was translated into complications following childbirth.  I can   say, “…and died on Septmber 10, 1797, from puerperal fever, a complication following childbirth.” if you like instead.
2)I said where she was born, London, which implies her British heritage (you say, “British Writer”).
3)We both mention “Vindications”, but because I added an entire section dedicated to this work, I felt it would be redundant to repeat the information in the introduction.
4)We both list the genres/disciplines she dedicated herself to.
5)Again, in the original introduction you have nicely denoted her childhood, but since the Biography follows, I tried to maintain what you originally said in the Biography section as well.  I couldn’t keep the “chapel/Anglican” sentence because I was unable to find a literary reference for this through my sources, and you did not include one either.
6)Lastly, the information about Godwin and Shelley is again, tied into the Biography section I added.
As a result of the harsh and unethical removal of my work, I am restoring the article as to how it was posted in earlier November.  Slimvirgin, and others for that matter, should contact the latest editor (who will be me this time) to synthesize a concept/section that both parties see fit for public view; we must never DELETE eachother's work, and we must ALWAYS work together.
Lastly, and this is minor, although popular belief has it that MW wrote, "A Vindication of the Rights of Women", it is in fact "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman"; I have double-checked and confirmed this in, "The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism" (a complete reference of this text can be found under "Wollstonecraft, Mary" in the reference section of the latest post).
In light of ethics, seeing as how I have restored my original post in early November, I have tried to go through each edit since my original post to see if I too have removed anyone's contributions.  From what I have seen, it has been mostly maintenance of vandalism, and the minor "women/woman" issue covered in the previous paragraph.  If in fact I have removed someone's contributions, please feel free to work with me so we can have the best of both of our posts working together for a clear and effective article.  Slimvirgin, if you feel that I did not do justice to your original introduction section, again, please work with me so that we can produce the best article from both our works.  In saying that, I reviewed the original stub maintained by slimvirgin with my colleagues before I started. I then showed them the updated introduction I produced including both of our contributions, and they agreed that I took your original stub introduction and intertwined it with my work successfully.  Nonetheless, my offer still stands to work with you on the introduction if you are unsatisfied.
The ultimate goal is to have a sucessful, comprehensive article on Mary Wollstonecraft; I am proud of the group effort to maintain and improve the article that has ensued since my post.  Please, lets continue to work together to maintain and improve our edition of Mary Wollstonecraft, to make sure all users and researchers have an abundance of information on MW at their fingertips.
Drmillar 19:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Edits

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 18:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Mary Wollstonecraft]] 

message: It may be useful to copy some of the text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Wollstonecraft in order to have something to work from. Obviously the text would need to be edited heavily so that it doesn't sound like something written 100 years ago. Kaldari 17:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article