Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 3

message: * There's been a minor revert war over the English/American spelling issue. The article was written in American English and an editor changed it to English. With respect to the long-time editors here, I think the English variety ought to be used. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English basically says: 
: If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect. ... Proper names should retain their original spellings, for example, United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force. Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. 
: And yes, it says "Stay with established spelling" if there is no reason to change. But that's later in the guidelines, and the guidelines state that These guidelines are given roughly in order of importance; those earlier in the list will usually take precedence over later ones. But I think Shelley's lifelong identity with and residency in England is an identifiable tie to that spelling, which is a fine enough reason to change, I think.  This isn't a case where the article subject is basically not national-specific, and there's no clear reason to prefer any spelling. At least, could we please talk about it here? --lquilter 12:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wollstonecraft was British, but she is well known and read throughout the English-speaking world. Would you really consider Wollstonecraft a "topic specific to a particular English-speaking country"? I wouldn't. Kaldari 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, changing the spelling of the words is not the only thing that would have to change in the article. A national dialect is NOT only defined by its spelling - syntax and vocabulary would have to be changed as well. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English is a "guide" not a policy. I feel that it is a rather absurd "policy" because if one were to literally follow it in Wollstonecraft's case (and by the way it is Mary Wollstonecraft, not Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley as suggested in one of the comments above), the entire article should be written in eighteenth-century British English. I don't think anyone wants me to do that. Moreover, Wollstonecraft did not have a life-long identification with England. She lived in France for several years and was an avid supporter of the French Revolution. Eighteenth-century "people of letters" were not as nationalististic as nineteenth or twentieth-century "people of letters." The nation-state did not really come into its own until the nineteenth century. See all the scholarship on the rise of nationalism and the nation-state. Finally, I feel that it would be much more productive if people contributed content to the page rather than quibbling with its spelling.Awadewit 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I for one would prefer that the date style stays as it is; she was European and a significant person here, and I find it peculiar that anyone (let alone someone who claims not to "care much which style is used") should advocate applying any other style. Sorry. Carbonix 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not advocating any particular style. I'm advocating the original style the article was written in. As the Wikipedia Manual of Style states: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another." Kaldari 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate that cases like Shakespeare and so on get assigned to British English, but I think the advantages of having a clear rule are huge. The case of British literary figures is the least clear-cut, but having the rule for other cases such as Tony Blair or Dallas, Texas is definitely a good thing. Also, I don't think anybody is expected to write in a foreign variety of English [added: if they don't know how. Joeldl 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also prefer that the dates stay in the style in which they were originally written so that the dialect remains consistent. Also, although Wollstonecraft is European, do we have any evidence that she wrote dates in this way? This entire argument, as I outlined earlier, has flawed premises - to write in contemporary British English simply because Wollstonecraft wrote in eighteenth-century British English makes no sense. The dialects have differences, thus, if the point of writing in dialect is to remain "true" to the person, writing in contemporary British English does nothing of the sort. Under this logic, Shakespeare's page should be written in Early Modern English and Chaucer's page should be written in Middle English. I cannot believe that we are spending so much time discussing this. Could we please try to improve the page's content? Thanks. Awadewit 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To some extent, the benefit of assigning historical figures to the present-day country that is the heir of the one they belonged to, is having a clear rule. Just because the rule is artificial in some cases doesn't mean it's wrong. This is something I can live with. Conversely, if they're writing about an American figure in, say, 1650, Americans get to write in American English even though the colonies belonged to Britain. If nobody cares, just stick with the way things were. If people do disagree, then let the ones who are for British spelling win. (I'm Canadian, by the way.) Joeldl 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, this whole "policy" privileges English speakers. We can't write the Dante page in Italian or the Victor Hugo page in French, for example. What about their linguistic rights? See the absurdity? Awadewit 12:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, for Dante and Hugo, there's no preferred variety of English, so you try not to change things other people have written, unless you're doing it in order to prevent a mix of words like "color" and "honour". In that case, the rule is, keep the article in the state it's been in for a long time, but if there's disagreement about that, return to the first major contributor. As I said, I don't see anything absurd about having an article about Dallas use American conventions. It's true that when the rule is applied to Shakespeare, the result seems a bit unfair, but the advantage of having a clear rule is enormous. I'm not saying that it has anything to do with the kind of English M. W. wrote in, just the fact that she was English, and is therefore an England-related topic. If people change the spelling to British, just let them do it. Joeldl 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Apart from this discussion, I can't find any past controversy over date formatting here; the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formats related to topics, which suggests by inference that if British English is used in the article, then British date formatting should also be used. And an article about someone who was British certainly should use British English - which I believe would be the version predominantly spoken in France, as well. (I'd also be curious to know what was regarded as a questionable edit on my part.) MisfitToys 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: British English is not used in this article. The article has always been in American English except for a few reverted edits about a week ago. Thus by your own argument the date style should also be American. The other questionable edits I was referring to were the excessive links mentioned in the discussion section below. Kaldari 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll notice, I just argued that British English should be used. MisfitToys 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I should add that it's not unheard of for writers to be forced to change their spelling style for a particular publication in a particular country. Many British authors have their spelling changed for the U.S. editions of their books, and vice versa. Now, I don't necessarily agree that authors should have to do that, because I pretty much think that if you write a book, it should be the way you wanted it. BUT, what you write on Wikipedia doesn't belong to you, and if you're writing about Dallas, Texas, you can expect that in the long run, most editors and readers will be American, and a lot of people are probably going to write things after you, so it's okay to decide that it's going to be American spelling, since one has to be chosen. On the other hand, I disagree totally with a comment made previously that France is a British topic. That would be egregiously unfair. This argument about what kind of English is most often learned there is really a red herring. In the long run, bandying about extreme arguments like that one will make non-British editors less willing to accept the system at all, which is very fair and as it stands, and we know who would outvote whom if there were no system. Joeldl 20:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I tire of this, but I will respond again.
* 1) Spelling DOES NOT a dialect make. On no page written in "British English" have I yet seen reflected the syntax and vocabulary of modern British English. Please talk to a linguist or read up on what a dialect is.
* 2) The article was originally written in American English and, as the policy states, it should remain in the language of the original contributor.
* 3) I did not say that Wollstonecraft wrote in archaic English, but eighteenth-century English is indeed different. Anyone who has taught it (as I have) knows that students have a difficult time understanding it precisely because words have slightly different meanings, connotations and the syntax is alien to them. 
* 4) I am no fan of American hegemony either (we export McDonald's and Wal-Mart for god's sake, how embarrassing), but I am a fan of a universal language. It would be so much easier to communicate. I'm an idealist that way, I suppose. Perhaps all of wikipedia should be written in Esperanto? 
* 5) Finally, I would like to point out that the bulk of the articles I contribute to wikipedia are going to be on eighteenth-century British figures and texts because that is my expertise, but because I speak American English, they are going to be written in American English. Most of the pages I have worked on or am working on were nearly empty when I got to them and without my edits there would be virtually no information there at all. Furthermore, there is no community of people helping me out on these pages. I am beginning to resent the implication that my contributions are part of an American hegemony rather than valuable additions to wikipedia that no one else is bothering to make. I am writing about British figures, after all; some might argue that I am promoting a British literary canon at the expense of an American one, that my contributions actually represent a British hegemony, of all things. Again, I would urge those of you who know something about Wollstonecraft to improve the page. You can all also come and oppose Anna Laetitia Barbauld at FAC since it is also written in American English. 
* 6) One other small detail, "Britain" was first created in 1707. Scotland, England and Wales were joined by the Act of Union.
Awadewit 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that you would find many scholars who would dispute you on the issue of when "Britain" was first formed. I will give one example. From Linda Colley's Britons: "Great Britain was invented in 1707 when the Parliament of Westminster passed the Act of Union linking Scotland to England and Wales. From now on, this document proclaimed, there would be 'one united kingdom by the name of Great Britain'." (11) One can make an argument for 1536, 1707 and 1800, I think, but the most common date, I believe, is 1707. Also, I don't think the policy on national dialects is at all clear, because as I read it, the page is supposed to remain as the original contributor began it. Second, I outlined all of the reasons why I think the policy on writing a page in the dialect of the historical  figure is itself absurd in my previous postings. But I am done with this debate. I have made all of the relevant points. I would rather write pages. Awadewit 11:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, "ize" and "ise" are both acceptable in UK English according to the Oxford English Dictionary (See the introductory notes). The OED uses "ize". Since I believe all of the spelling differences relevent to this article involve "ize" vs "ise", it seems this is actually a non-issue, as "ize" is perfectly acceptable on either side of the pond. Kaldari 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: British grammar might include "he will do" instead of "he will", or "coffee with sugar in" instead of "coffee with sugar in it". I feel sorry for people like Awadewit, but the advantages of having a clear rule applied uniformly on Wikipedia supersedes the existence of a handful of American specialists on British topics or vice versa, and it's more important to have the article on Dallas written in American spelling than it is to avoid changing other people's spelling (once, if the rule is adhered to). As for "ise" or "ize", since there's no real difficulty in understanding either form for anybody, and -ize is acceptable in British English, I agree that -ize should probably be left as it is, since there was no need to change it in the first place.  (That doesn't mean that I think articles that start life with -ise should change.) Joeldl 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National spelling

message: Please do not overlink this page and please be sure that if you are linking to a page that it is indeed relevant. Thanks. Awadewit 03:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed some of the excessive links. If you notice more, please go ahead and remove them. Kaldari 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking

message: The first picture encountered in the article has been hacked.
Also, what's this about "jew convert"? in the leading paragraph?  (2/20/07)
(27 April 2007 – 10 September 2008)
huh? I clicked to see today's features, and someone who's a idiot decided to edit the dates to (27 April 2007 – 10 September 2008) Oh c'mon. Change it thanks
I would like to thank the tireless army of volunteers who are keeping up with the vandals. Awadewit 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We generally avoid protecting or semi-protecting pages that are featured on the main page, especially the featured article of the day.  ShadowHalo 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and the featured articles of the day are supposed to showcase that.  Regardless, the Mary Wollstonecraft talk page is not the place to discuss policy changes.  Go to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article or talk to Raul654 if you want to discuss protecting featured articles of the day.   ShadowHalo 17:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Natalie, you can add your voice regarding article protection at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. –Outriggr § 02:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism on main page

message: Now that the Bibliography section has been renamed "Sources", it is somewhat misleading, as not all of the works listed there were used as references for this article. During the featured article review it was suggested that we split this section into "References" and "Further reading" so that it was apparent which were actually used in making the article and which ones were merely suggested reading. I thought this was a good suggestion and implemented it, but it was later changed back into one list. How would people feel about breaking it back into 2 lists to remove the confusion? (And perhaps removing the unnecessary "References" subheader under Notes.) Kaldari 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the two lists are confusing. Not everyone is going to understand that the "References" are the sources cited in the article. Moreover, although I cited only the texts in the notes, I did read the other texts and they certainly shaped my thinking in writing the page, so they influenced the writing of the article as well. Also, I thought a single bibliography would be easier for someone to use who came to the page looking for sources on Wollstonecraft. Awadewit 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. I wasn't aware that you had actually read all of those! :) Kaldari 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Further Reading 

message: Well, here we go again. Various people keep changing the lead from "British writer" to "English writer." Here, though, I think the argument is more clear cut. The most prominent scholar on Wollstonecraft, Barbara Taylor, in her book Mary Wollstonecraft and the Feminist Imagination refers to her as a British writer. I could cite more scholars who refer to her as a British writer, but I will begin with that. WP:RS states that peer-reviewed, scholarly sources should be used. I am following their lead. Awadewit 12:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not add references into the page that direct the reader to information about Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, who is Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter. Arguing that Shelley is an English writer does not prove that Wollstonecraft was. Also, scholarly works, such as the one I quote above, trump encyclopedia articles as references. Awadewit 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly every essay in The Cambridge Companion to Wollstonecraft, which represents the most accepted scholarship on Wollstonecraft, also refers to Wollstonecraft as a British writer. Awadewit 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steven Kreis's biography of Wollstonecraft refers to her as "Anglo-Irish", BTW. Kaldari 18:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British vs. English writer