Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Men/Archive 1

message: I have pasted in sections from the other pages I wrote on MW just so this page is filled out a little bit. I will come back to it at another time and write it properly. Awadewit 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pasting in the meantime

message: *Wollstonecraft not only attacked hereditary privilege but also the language that Burke used to elevate it. I looked forward to reading about this, but I felt the article glossed over it somewhat, and without any specific examples of the language. I gather that Burke put women down with his assumptions of their roles, natures, etc., but for me it is not clear what the language issues were, as such. We have this: Wollstonecraft applies this feminist critique to Burke's language throughout the Reflections. As Johnson argues, “her pamphlet as a whole refutes the Burkean axiom 'to make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely'"; Wollstonecraft successfully challenges Burke's rhetoric of the beautiful with the rhetoric of the rational. It would be good to know what particular words or phrases Wollstonecraft objected to.
:*This one I am going to save for after the FAC. I simply can't concentrate on it right now. Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. It's just me; I love reading anything to do with language, and so I was looking for that analysis.qp10qp 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *In AE it means "corruption" and is not slang. :) Do you have another suggestion? Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *In BrEng "graft" means either "hard work" or "corruption" and is therefore ambiguous. "Corruption" is clearest.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have never heard it used for corruption in England (I don't read newspapers or watch television, though), but it looks like it can be traced to nineteenth-century English usage. My dictionaries have it as "American slang" or "originally American slang". I presume that it has emerged from American slang to become a legitimate American usage. If it is used in Britain, I would imagine it be an Americanism nowadays.qp10qp 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, OED has it as colloquial of mid-19th US origin. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My source uses "corruption". I was trying not to plagiarize. Other ideas? Awadewit | talk 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "political graft" disambiguates. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused - it's not linked. Awadewit | talk 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *In AE, "hawkish" means "war-promoting" or "war-mongering". Suggestions? Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No need to change it. It means that in BrEng too (and has done for nearly two hundred years). --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was not a question about British or American usage. It was a question about the meaning of the word in the following context: "opposition to the hawkish "landed interest" and its role in government corruption", where no mention of war seems implied. I feel that it asks a lot of the reader to read that into it, so perhaps "war-mongering" or some other clear indication of the meaning should be included. This is one of those words that contain a faintly distracting dead metaphor, in my opinion.qp10qp 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I misunderstood. "inclined to favour hard-line or warlike policies" (OED) b. "... uncompromising or warlike" (SOED)
The meaning is broader than war-like so perhaps "uncompromising" is more instantly comprehensible. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were advocating for wars - against France. (This is such a nightmare - the historical context is so detailed and so important.) Awadewit | talk 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hawkish" is fine then: "bellicose" is an option, with the added bonus of sounding brooding and sinister.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love "bellicose"! Changed. Awadewit | talk 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *It does: Wollstonecraft's Rights of Men was published anonymously on 29 November 1790, the first of between fifty and seventy responses to Burke.[22] Only three weeks later, on 18 December, a second edition, with her name printed on the title page, was issued. Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault; like an idiot, I missed that.qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *When discussing the Revolution Controversy, Paine's RM is always brought up, especially in comparison to Burke. We do not know how many copies of Wollstonecraft's VRM were sold. The larger point is: this debate was incredibly heated (much like the FAC!). Part 1 of RM was published in 1791 and Part 2 was published in 1792 - together, both parts sold around 200,000 copies. That is why I chose the 1792 date. Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *British reform took off again in the teens and in 1832 a reform bill was passed. British reform died during the later 1790s and the oughts. See new version. Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. It's an exceptionally complex movement to date. And one never knows whether Wollstonecraft's heirs were the popular radicals or the parliamentary radicals. I suspect the latter, but they were neutered by the time they got anywhere with the reform bills, which were rather pale compared to the French Revolution. I suspect that the Napoleonic wars had a muting effect on the radicalism too. And just plain old lumpen British conservatism and timidity.qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Napoleonic  Wars did almost all the radicals in. Awadewit | talk 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes. Changed. Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *She does both. Do I not explain this later? I tried to be general in the lead and leave the details for later. Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *I will deal with this after the FAC. I will add in a few sentences on Burke's role. Awadewit | talk 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Amazon-ish per quote and pro-French per VRM, IMO. Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced. It's no big deal, though, just an illustration judgement. qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have another suggestion? The illustrations on the MW pages are getting repetitive, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree. Voice opinion above. Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too much like voting for my liking. Such instant consensus would be neither here nor there to me. Editing decisions are the responsibility of the editors who edit at any time and in my opinion cannot be dictated by a historical consensus nailed into the sand.qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to support or oppose - you could just voice your opinion regarding the logic of the arguments. Awadewit | talk 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm not sure anyone reads the articles there. Awadewit | talk 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crumbs! qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. Awadewit | talk 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supplementary FAC comments by Qp10qp

message: I have no problem with that addition. I couldn't really back it up anymore than it already is, though. Wrad 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Because this debate has been so heated, I think that it is important for everyone to lay out their reasoning as clearly as possible. If you could explain why you think this material should be added, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses from other editors