Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Incidentally ...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: We could simply be clinical and say "emotionally-draining"? --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these seem very eloquent, do they? I'm still thinking. Awadewit | talk 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I couldn't think of anything, which is why I said "something along those lines". :) Awadewit | talk 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't see why we can't ever be a bit poetic. Awadewit | talk 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Chuckle] We live in a(n), um, prosaic world. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can o' worms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  as usual 

message: Please do not change the spelling or punctuation of a quotation unless you have checked the source and found the quotation here to be in error. Thank you. Awadewit 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 4#Protection. Awadewit | talk 00:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems pretty old. Are the trolls in the wings ready to pounce on this? No big deal. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, this article seems to be a prominent target for vandalism for some reason. If you have any suggestions for improving the article, please let us know. It is certainly not our intention to limit legitimate work on the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this article protected?

message: It is Mary Wollstonecraft's 250th birthday on April 27. Does anyone know how we could get her featured on the main page "On this day"?  I am unsure of the procedure, but will ask around. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done put her in the queue! Here. I would appreciate it if interested parties could tweak it, or keep an eye on the page in case objections are raised. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested that A Vindication of the Rights of Woman be the TFA - it was something I had been planning for a while. Awadewit (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A kind editor called User:Zzyzx11 has moved Mary to the head of the day.  BrainyBabe (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating an article for the main page  

message: Does anyone know why there is a painting of The Icebergs (1861) by Frederic Edwin Church at the bottom of this article?  Is this is a mistake?
--Skb8721 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an image of the the sublime. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Image?

message: I don't know how to do this with a template, so I'll note here that on Monday 27 April 2009, the 250th anniversary of her birth, MW was featured on two places on the English Wikipedia homepage: her Vindication was the Featured Article, and the birthday itself was the lead item in the "On this day" section, with her portrait as a thumbnail. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the record, Mary's 250th anniversary 

message: Should be Todd 17, instead of Todd 1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudu Steiner (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the book - it is page 11. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on ref. number 2:  

message: She is listed here as one of the "core biographies". Is there a way to work that into the box at the top of the page? Also, the stray fact in a box of its own could be folded in. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on "show" on the WikiProject box and you will see the "Core" listing. I don't know how to fold in the fact box, but if you know how, that would be great. Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  top biographies 

message: A new sentence was added about Wollstoncraft's parents. Can someone find a citation for the info in one of the existing references so we don't have to use the awkward Google Books citation? Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I'm out of town right now - it'll have to wait a week. Awadewit (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Otherwise, I'd go down to the library. Kaldari (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Hey Awadewit, did you ever get a chance to look into fixing this? Kaldari (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like this has been fixed. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents 

message: Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: In Our Time

message: I've just been reading through the article. I think the section on the "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" could do with some tidying. The author has stated "Her ambiguous statements regarding the equality of the sexes have since made it difficult to classify Wollstonecraft as a modern feminist, particularly since the word and the concept were unavailable to her." 
Firstly, there is no proof within the article that her comments are ambiguous merely the authors own opinion earlier in the piece where they have written: "Wollstonecraft famously and ambiguously writes". Secondly, just because a word is not in usage, a fact I do not deny, doesn't stop it applying to someone. Thirdly, I would argue that the concept was available to her because as the author has already said, "What she does claim is that men and women are equal in the eyes of God"
Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantafied (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a difficult point to argue as there is no agreed upon definition of "feminism" or "feminist". I think the section is just trying to emphasize that Wollstonecraft's version of feminism might not line up with modern notions of the concept, even though at its heart they are both simply arguing for equality. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminist

message: The entry for the Vindications includes incorrect publication information.  "Broadview Literary Texts" is a publication series, not a publisher.  The publisher for the book is Broadview Press and the series is the "Broadview Editions" series.  This error may make it more difficult for people to find the appropriate text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkidusfriend (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. It's fixed now. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small error in "Primary Works" section 

message: Mary was the second of seven children, not six. She had six siblings: elder brother Edward (Ned), then her; then Henry, Elizabeth (Bess or Eliza), Everina,  James, and Charles. (Source: Gordon's Vindication, family tree at front; also chapter 1, "Violence at Home", p 6-7.) It appears that all of the children Mary's mother bore survived to adulthood. I haven't seen the source that asserts there were only six children, but from its title, The Feminist papers: from Adams to de Beauvoir, it sounds like a derivative or analytic work, and a large overview to boot. It seems a strange choice for the basic facts, when there are several good full-length biographies. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a dispute arising if you change 6 to 7 citing Gordon. RashersTierney (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence was added in relatively recently. The source cited only says she was "the second child and first daughter of Edward John and Elizabeth Dixon Wollstonecraft". I think you are fine to change it and add the new citation. Nice work finding the error! Kaldari (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and corrected it. Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it's safer that way. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error in early life 

message: This article claims that Wollstonecraft died of septicaemia. I am pretty sure that in his documentary on October 2, called "Ian Hislop's Stiff Upper Lip: An Emotional History of Britain" it was Wollstonecraft that Ian Hislop claimed committed suicide by taking too much opium. Does any one know which is correct? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: She did not commit suicide. Please consult any (or all) of the biographies about Wollstoncraft cited in this article. All of them discuss how she died after childbirth, not from suicide. Wadewitz (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: How did this woman die?

message: I am surprised that there is nothing in this article about the influence on Mary by Richard Price, her friend and then minister of the Newington Green Unitarian Church where Mary worshipped. It was an attack on Price's support for the French Revolution by Edmund Burke that induced Mary to write "vindication of the rights of man." Of course, that was followed by her pioneering feminist writing of similar name. I don't know who is permitted to make changes to this article, but these seem to be substantial gaps.  --Flamingswordoflovingkindness (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can make changes to the article. Most of the sources on Wollstonecraft, however, suggest that it was Burke's work itself that prompted her to write VRM (see the sources quoted in Vindication of the Rights of Men). Wadewitz (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newington Green influence 

message: One addition to this article is the portrait of a girl reading a book by Otto Scholderer. It was painted in 1883 and while it is a nice painting, it is not Mary Wollstonecraft's portrait. I question why this painting is in the article. It could be misleading by letting people think that is a real portrait. If someone has some documentation of the story behind the portrait justifying why the portrait is here, it would be appreciated. From the brief research I found, it looks like a blogger misread an article and attributed the portrait as a real one of Mary Wollstonecraft (AJ de Faria (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not presented as a portrait of anyone in the article. It is a picture of a young woman reading to illustrate her novels - the caption says "Otto Scholderer's Young Girl Reading (1883); in both Mary and The Wrongs of Woman, Wollstonecraft criticizes women who imagine themselves as sentimental heroines. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portraits of Mary Wollstonecraft 

message: She's listed as a Deist in the Categories section, but the article offers no reference for this claim. She appears to have been a devout yet unorthodox Christian who was critical of institutional Christianity:
Wollstonecraft was a devout dissenting Christian who we can place in a long Enlightenment tradition of Christian humanism that was critical of institutional Christianity. As Barbara Taylor suggests, the ‘centrality of religion to Wollstonecraft’s worldview is evident in virtually every aspect of her thought, from her uncompromising egalitarianism to her hostility toward British commercialism…to her ardent faith in an imminent age of universal freedom and happiness’.[25] Here, in A Vindication of the Rights of Men, Wollstonecraft argues that ‘to act according to the dictates of reason is to conform to the law of God’.[26] She is, however, quite scathing about God’s representatives on Earth—the British clergy—who are dependent on the aristocracy for their income and who practise their profession for money rather than conviction.[27] She is equally scornful of the British Parliament, in which most MPs have gained their seats through their fortune and hereditary rank.[28]
http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Humanities+Research+Vol+XVI.+No.+2.+2010/5271/ann.xhtml  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.91.82 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, she is not a deist. Those categories have been removed. Wadewitz (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: Her tombstone says her last name was Godwin. Since she's best known as Wollstonecraft then the title of the article shouldn't change, but shouldn't the name in bold in the lead be her actual name, Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin? Whatly (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last name 

message: I know that Mary was a member of Newington Green Unitarian church, and that many of the sermons there helped to influenced her ideology. I have a couple of sources that corroborate this fact, so I was wondering if it would be okay to add this section? I'm mostly asking because this is a protected page and do not know what the procedure is for adding a new section!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torspedia (talk • contribs) 12:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wollstonecraft's religious views were actually quite complex. How about you paste what you want to add here and we'll work on the best way to incorporate it? Wadewitz (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a "religion" section to the page 

message: The main section indicates that Mary Wollstonecraft died 10 days after the birth of her daughter (Mary 'Godwin' Shelley) "Wollstonecraft died at the age of thirty-eight, ten days after giving birth to her second daughter."
On Mary Godwin Shelley's [page] it is correctly stated that Wollstonecraft died 11 days after the birth of her daughter. "Mary Godwin's mother died when Mary was eleven days old." Mary Shelley was born on 30 August 1797 and her mother Mary Wollstonecraft died on 10 September 1797.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinWLewis (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Fixed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Headline Section 

message: 69.23.142.102 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: the correct title is A Vindication of the Rights of Woman - Arjayay (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mary Wollstonecraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403154849/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91c2/chapter13.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91c2/chapter13.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In July 1794, Wollstonecraft welcomed the fall of the Jacobins, predicating this would be followed with a restoration of freedom of press in France, which led her to return to Paris.
In July 1794, Wollstonecraft welcomed the fall of the Jacobins, predicting this would be followed with a restoration of freedom of press in France, which led her to return to Paris.
Carece (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in France and Gilbert Imlay