Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 2

message: I think that we should include the books that are cited in the notes in the "Further Reading" section just in case someone does not read the entry but is only looking for further references. 
Awadewit 09:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what WP:CITE recommends: "All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefullness beyone verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic." So it looks like your suggestion would be acceptable. However, I would recommend that if we do add the books used as references to the Further reading list that we prune the Further Reading list a bit so that it only includes the most comprehensive and notable works about Wollstonecraft. Personally I think the list should not exceed 15 books at the most (it lists 16 at the moment). Unfortunately I don't have a great idea myself which books should be pruned from the list, but perhaps you might be able to offer some suggestions. If you had to remove 6 or 7 books from that list, which ones would they be? Kaldari 01:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should cut some of the biographies. Perhaps we should leave only three or four standards. I added some books and articles on her works that I thought would be helpful but there is, of course, much more. I tried to include only the basics. By the way, I do think we should include articles in the "Further Reading." Some of the most important work on Wollstonecraft's children's literature and reviews has been done in articles rather than in books. Awadewit 08:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: I find that this article meets the good article criteria.  It is well-written, covers its subject in depth, and is well-referenced and reasonably stable.  Some improvements are possible:  the prose could be tightened up further, and more references could be added (the article currently depends heavily on just two of the listed references, Todd and Macdonald).  Nevertheless, this is a fine effort and a Good Article. Shimeru 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't catch this earlier, but I meant more citations to other references could be added.  The list of references is fairly impressive already, but citations are mostly to the two mentioned.  Just for the sake of clarity. Shimeru 05:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can do that, but it will take me some time. I just happened to have the Todd biography around. Essentially, I will be getting the same information, but from other books, though. I tried to include only what scholars agree upon. By the way, Macdonald isn't a secondary source - that is Wollstonecraft. Whoever edited my notes put the editor's name in instead of Wollstonecraft's. All of those quotations are from Wollstonecraft's own writings. Those, I feel, are legitimate and perhaps someone can change the notes (again). I had used "Ibid" system but that isn't wikistyle, I guess (even though you use Chicago style!).Awadewit 09:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I was wondering about that, especially the footnotes regarding the quotes.  That makes sense.  Anyway, it obviously doesn't stand in the way of a GA, but I think the work will prove beneficial in getting the article to FA.  I think it's pretty close already. Shimeru 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, I think it needs a lot more work. It needs sections on her two novels, Mary and Maria, and her travel narrative, Letters from Sweden. Also, it needs a section on her legacy (which I think can integrate the suggestion on feminism). Also, revision and refinement of language are a necessity here. I just wanted to get some stuff up because there was essentially nothing on the page. I'm sort of shocked that the article has moved from "B" to "GA" - I think that the "B" ranking is more appropriate at this time. I think I can say that since I basically wrote the whole page, right? Awadewit 23:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say whatever you like. ^_^  You've got high standards, which should serve you well in your further efforts with this article.  I think it does meet GA criteria, though -- it's still broad in its coverage, easy to follow, referenced, laid out well, and so forth.  Even accounting for the gaps you mentioned, I think it'd be useful to a majority of readers.  Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that the remaining tasks on the way to FA status are to clean up the prose and to make the article still more comprehensive, and I didn't feel that it was lacking sufficiently in either area to fail it.  I could easily see this vaulting to A-class with a little more work. Shimeru 10:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "B" and "GA" are very similar rankings actually. "GA" just means it has been officially vetted. The real rankings are "Stub", "Start", "B", and "A". "GA" is basically a more official version of "B", and "FA" is a more official "A". So your opinion that the article is actually "B" quality is pretty accurate. The change that you mention, however, was actually from "Start" class (which is poor) to "GA", not from "B" to "GA". I don't think this article was ever actually rated as "B". Kaldari 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: I changed the sentence on Original Stories. I'm not sure where that reference work got its info on Wollstonecraft's Original Stories being popular until the middle of the nineteenth century but that really just isn't the case. According to the  National Union Catalogue, it no longer appears after 1818 and there are only 9 editions of it between 1788 and 1818. Although that is not too shabby, that is nothing like some of the other best-selling children's books of the late eighteenth-century. Some of Anna Barbauld's books, for example, sold for over a hundred years and one cannot even count the editions because so many were pirated in both Britain and America.Awadewit 10:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Stories

message: I have put in a reference to St. Clair's biography for the information about Imlay registering Wollstonecraft as his wife in France. Someone had listed Claudia Johnson's chronology in her introduction (do we even know that she assembled that?) to the Wollstonecraft Cambridge Companion. I somehow have this feeling that referencing a chronology is less reliable than referencing a text.Awadewit 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is definitely preferrable, I just put in that reference since it was better than no reference at all. Thanks for adding a better reference. Kaldari 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of source

message: What is the "Selected editions" section for? I've never seen this in any other Wikipedia articles. Kaldari 18:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of that either. I put the standard collected edition of Wollstonecraft's works in the "Further Reading," so I don't really feel that this is necessary. Could the person who added it weigh in on why they think it is necessary? Awadewit 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to delete the "Selected editions" section now.Awadewit 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selected editions 

message: I'm not familiar with this notation: "Tomlin, 52ff." What does the "ff" mean? Kaldari 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "ff"'s stand for "folio" but what the whole thing signifies is "page 52 and following."Awadewit 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Kaldari 22:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference notation 

message: I feel like the following sentence needs more context: "It was not until the late nineteenth century that one could even begin to speak laudably of Wollstonecraft again." What was the period of time during which you could not speak laudibly of Wollstonecraft and why? Why did that change? The sentence seems to imply that she was considered a controversial or even scandalous figure for a period of time, but there's not really an explanation. Kaldari 22:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let me know if the current version is an improvement. Thanks.Awadewit 15:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a great improvement. I think this article is getting very close to featured article quality. I'm going to give it another proofreading and then send it to peer review. Kaldari 19:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: I have edited and expanded the introduction section in preparation for peer review. (Typically, feature quality articles have introductions averaging about three paragraphs.) Please look over it and revise anything that needs editing or offer suggestions for improving it below. Thanks. Kaldari 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for improving the introduction. I think we still need a section on Letters from Sweden as that is considered a major work by Wollstonecraft. I am away from my books at the moment, so I can't write it now, but I could in a week or so. Awadewit 23:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded introduction 

message: I had some time free, so I performed a copyediting pass.  I've marked a few statements that I think need citations -- mostly claims made about the impact and importance of Maria, but also one or two quotes that I think warrant attribution.  There may still be some prasing issues to work out; I'll make another pass in a couple of days. Shimeru 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was a thorough copyediting :) I hadn't had a chance to go through it yet myself since your suggstions, but I'm sure you did a much better job than I would have anyway. There is one piece that I'm not sure about the wording on though: "Wollstonecraft's life has been a topic of interest to scholars". I saw in your peer review comments that you weren't really sure what to put here either. Personally, I think "of interest to feminists" is probably the best fit, since many of the people interested in Wollstonecraft's life aren't necessarily "scholars" (Emma Goldman for example), and the reasons cited for their interest (struggle against hardships and unconventional relationships) are more in line with the interests of feminists than the interests of "scholars". Of course it's a difficult distinction to make since most of the people we're talking about are actually "feminist scholars". At the same time, though, I don't want it to sound like Wollstonecraft is only interesting to feminists. Does "scholars and feminists" sound good, or does that make it sound like feminists aren't scholars. Hmm, I can't decide. Any ideas on what would be good wording there? Kaldari 22:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that was still troubling me, too.  I elected to go with the most general of the three terms I'd mentioned, but not for any particularly solid reason.  In a way, I'd prefer to leave it just at "of interest," but I think that's a red flag for the obvious "to whom?" question.  Perhaps "feminists and historians" or "feminists and political scholars"? Shimeru 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right after Wollstonecraft's death, her life was of interest to quite a wide circle (revolutionaries and Anti-Jacobins, for example) and since there was no feminist movement at that point, I don't think we can leave it at feminists. Also, since Woolf and Goldman are not scholars, I don't think we can leave it at scholars. I think the thing to do would be to say something like "since her death, the story of Wollstonecraft's life has often stirred more controversy than her writings" or something like that. Awadewit 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my shot at rewording the sentence about interest in Wollstonecraft's life: "The story of Wollstonecraft's life has recieved as much interest as her writing due to the hardships she faced and her unconventional, and often tumultuous, relationships." How does that sound? Does "The story of" add anything useful or should I chop that off? Kaldari 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad.  I think I'd drop "The story of," yes. Shimeru 06:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping "story" might not be such a bad idea since most often it was indeed a story that people were interested in. Gossip, if you will. Awadewit 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think you're right there.  Will see what I can do during my next pass through -- probably Wednesday at this point. Shimeru 00:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is fixed now. Kaldari 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: We still need a section on Letters from Sweden. Can anyone add that? I am STILL away from my books and it looks like I won't be getting back to them until next week now. If no one else can do it, I can sometime next week for sure, but as that is the last big chunk of writing that needs to be done, I thought we should get it up soon so that it can be copyedited as well.Awadewit 06:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letters from Sweden 

message: I noticed that in the excellent copyediting, Shimeru took out a lot of my equivocations like Wollstonecraft "appeared to have depression" and other similar phrases. Many of those were intentional. We do not have a diagnosis of depression for Wollstonecraft; it is a speculation that scholars have made, knowing that she tried to commit suicide and she wrote many melancholy letters. But none of that is definitive.Awadewit 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's really problematic to say "Wollstonecraft was plagued by depression". True, Wollstonecraft was never diagnosed with clinical depression, but depression is widely understood outside of a medical context. The evidence is pretty conclusive that Wollstonecraft dealt with at least some form of depression (considering she attempted suicide twice). In the case of her sister's more specific post-partum depression, I see that Shimeru left the equivocation intact, which is probably a good idea since post-partum depression is a much more clinical term. Kaldari 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty close to my reasoning -- her depression and her father's violence seem pretty well established by the text (which is cited, though I admit I haven't got the book to hand).  If you feel I overstepped with some of the removals, go ahead and reinsert them.  They'll probably be pointed out at FA, though. Shimeru 06:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons I made the point about depression in particular is because all of the biographies I read do so as well. But I will not add the equivocation back in if people do not think it is necessary.Awadewit 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the equivocation is awkward in this case. It just seems much too anal to not state the obvious here. Plus, I have a reference for an unequivocating quote, so I'll reference that... Kaldari 05:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that I think that the equivocation is essential in this case. It is not obvious to say that someone two hundred years ago had depression when all we have left are their letters. It is incredibly difficult to diagnose depression today. Also, your quotation uses the word depression in a broad sense, not in the clinical sense, so I do not think that you can use it to support the idea that Wollstonecraft had depression. I do not view cautious and careful scholarship as being "anal." Awadewit 07:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we not also be using it in "a broad sense"? I don't think it's necessary or desirable for us to hazard guesses (or echo other sources guesses) about whether or not Wollstonecraft may have suffered from clinical depression. But I don't see anything wrong with saying that she suffered depression (in the normal sense of the word). Perhaps there is a way to rephrase it without using the word "depression", or do you think it is important that we address the issue of clinical depression in the article? In case your wondering why we're so anti-equivocation, it has to do with the featured article criteria, specifically the "brilliant prose" criteria. In practice, this criteria means that reviewing editors will be harsh on equivocation-heavy writing. This is to offset Wikipedia's natural tendency towards equivocating everything (although this is more typically due to neutral point of view issues rather than historical uncertainty). Obviously, we can't make unsubstantiated claims to make the writing more compelling, but in this case, I think it is fair to use "depression" in the broader sense. I would be interested, however, in seeing what Todd says on the matter. Kaldari 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason I worry about using the word in a broad sense here is that a general reader of this article will believe that we mean clinical depression because that word has taken on such medical weight now (that Todd had to include a footnote explaining her meaning is a good indication of that fact). Such a reader might then blithely go forth and say "Wollstonecraft had depression." I tried to avoid a long explanatory footnote like Todd's with how I wrote the paragraph in the first place. Wikipedia cannot avoid equivocation, particularly in articles about historical figures and events about which our knowledge will always be incomplete. To do so would be intellectually dishonest. I think that we should either leave in the equivocation or add a note similar to Todd's. I worry about relegating the explanation to a footnote, though; readers often skip the footnotes.Awadewit 17:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be possible to rewrite the sentence in a different way. Another thing that bothers me about that sentence is that it seems a bit disconnected from the previous paragraph. We jump from discussing her relationship with Fuseli and her flight to France to discussing her depression without any segue or context. Would it be possible to say something like "Fuseli's rejection of Wollstonecraft left her in a state of depression, a pattern that would repeat itself throughout Wollstonecraft's life." Maybe that's not the best wording, but something like that? Alternatively, what do you think about cutting that paragraph entirely? It's kind of an awkward digression without much context. The writing would flow better without it, although we do lose a bit of insight into Wollstonecraft's personality. In the meantime, I'll change it back to your version as you probably do have a point about readers taking it the wrong way as it is currently written. Kaldari 18:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was awkward as well, but I wasn't quite sure what to do with the whole issue. Wollstonecraft's letters reveal that she was a very emotional person - she seemed to go through great highs and lows. If you read all of her letters, you get a sense of someone living life to its fullest (even if that means that she has to experience horrifying times of depression). To leave this element out is, I think, problematic, particularly because so many people who knew her at the time describe this aspect of her, particularly the "depressive" aspect. I didn't want to keep saying "And now Wollstonecraft is depressed again." This is what happens when you read the biographies (as I'm sure you know) - I didn't really think that there was room for that here. Perhaps we could move the section to the "Childhood and Early Life" section and say that Wollstonecraft was highly emotional and was more than likely depressive, and that this continued for her whole life? Awadewit 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would probably be best to mention her emotional instability at whatever point she first showed such tendencies (Fanny's death?). Then we could use wording similar to the quote in Miller: "Mary was beginning to settle into the pattern that molded her life — elation and accomplishment, followed by depression." An alternate idea would be to save it for the yet-to-be-written section on Letters from Sweden. Kaldari 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a bit more material on Jane Arden and massaged the text a bit to try to get it to flow into the discussion on depression as naturally as possible. Let me know what you think. Kaldari 07:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is better. Awadewit 08:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Depression

message: Can I just ask why we are doing ISBNs? Since the link does not take you to the book (that would be cool, if it did), I am kind of wondering why wikipedia is doing them. I know, for example, that some of these books have multiple ISBNs because there are multiple editions (hardbacks, paperbacks, reissues). Are we going to go there? Why isn't the bibliographic information enough? Just curious. Awadewit 20:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory is that Wikipedia wants to make locating other references as easy as possible (so that you don't have to "take our word for it"), so including the ISBN numbers (or any other information about reference materials) is highly encouraged. At the featured article level it is almost mandatory. Regarding multiple ISBNs: if there are multiple ISBN numbers, it is common to use a format such as , where the X is variable. Kaldari 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was something like that. It just seems unnecessary since the publication information is plenty to go on (at least academics have gotten by for years). Also, I wonder what general readers will think of articles based on books without ISBN numbers. Awadewit 04:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I agree with you. I don't think the ISBNs are neccessary, but at least it's not as bad as it used to be. People used to list ASIN numbers for books that didn't have ISBNs so that every book had an ID (that's Amazon's proprietary ID system). Kaldari 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN 

message: According to the Wikipedia manual of style, "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only." In our bio we refer to Wollstonecraft's early friends by their first names, e.g. Jane and Fanny rather than Arden and Blood. Personally I think it sounds better using Jane and Fanny, but I know this will come up as an issue if we nominate the article for Featured status. Does anyone have any opinions on this? "Wollstonecraft eventually realized that she had idealized Blood" sounds a bit strange in particular. Kaldari 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reason I did this initially is that I thought might talk about Jane and Fanny's families, Fanny's in particular (Wollstonecraft communicated a lot with Fanny's brother). If I had, or if anyone does in the future, using only last names becomes confusing. Also, again, although it is a convention that academics use in writing scholarly texts, I'm not sure that the same holds for biographies. All of the biographies of Wollstonecraft that I read referred to these two women as "Jane" as "Fanny." The other style is more formal. (It is, of course, problematic in an article on one of the first feminists that we refer to women by their first names and men (Imlay and Godwin) by their last names.) I have no strong feelings either way on this issue. Awadewit 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed them to last names. Kaldari 01:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last names v. first names 

message: Is there anything else that needs to be done on this article before it is submitted as a Featured article candidate? Kaldari 01:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done. I fiddled a bit more with the "Early Life" section. It seems clear from Wollstonecraft's letters and the biographies that I have read that Wollstonecraft was extremely possessive, so I think that we are on solid ground with that. We may not want her to be "psychotic" as you say, but her letters certainly sound that way sometimes. Awadewit 03:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so as well.  I've just (finally) finished that second copyediting pass, and there were very few changes.  The one thing I'm not certain how to handle: "Wollstonecraft also criticizes Burke's argument that tradition should underlie political theory; she argues for rationality, pointing out that under Burke's system we would be obligated to continue slavery because our ancestors held slaves."  First-person outside of a quoted passage is generally a bad idea, but I'm not sure how to refactor that without making the sentence more unwieldy and potentially confusing.  This may call for a direct quote from Wollstonecraft, Vindications, 44.  Aside from that, I think it's ready. Shimeru 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tackled that sentence in the text. ... It's now (still) a bit clunky as a sentence, perhaps, but has gotten rid of the first-person problem without (i think) affecting the meaning. --lquilter 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not completely satisfied with the paragraph about her friendship with Jane Arden. It seems like an unexpected place to bring up Wollstonecraft's depression, especially as her relationship with Jane seemed to involve jealousy more than depression. Also, if we are going to discuss the pain she expressed in her letters, I think we should have an example, preferably one specifically related to the section we discuss it in. Kaldari 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Kaldari that an example would make this better.  Maybe it would also make it more obvious where this point should go in the article. (Alas I don't have the work to pull out any examples.) --lquilter 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That looks better to me, Lquilter.  Nicely done. Shimeru 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please revert any passages that you think sounded better originally. I already reverted a couple, and there were a few others I was considering reverting. Far too often, Wikipedia editors interpret the neutral point of view policy to mean that no adjectives or adverbs are allowed which causes articles to tend towards bland mediocrity. Your writing style is top notch, IMO, especially compared with the typical prose found in most Wikipedia articles. Don't let the copyeditors discourage you (myself included). They have good intentions :) Kaldari 01:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, please do.  I looked back thru my edits & I believe that I only broke out a couple of sentences.  One was a run-on and wasn't clear as written, but the other was just style, and I wasn't completely thrilled with it anyway. But if we all keep tweaking we will eventually converge on something that is, hopefully, more readable than the prose found in most WP articles. --lquilter 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone object to me nominating the article for Featured Article status now? Awadewit, are you available to respond to criticisms and suggestions this week if we go for FA status (since you are the main contributor)? Kaldari 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went through the article again and tried to improve some things. I will be around this week. I suppose we should go ahead. Awadewit 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Congratulations to all of you. Shimeru 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  I have to say, very good job on the article.  I actually came looking for information on Vindication of the Rights of Woman and noticed that the summary here is longer and more thorough than that on the book's article.  Would someone (more knowledgeable than I) be able to add some of the information from there to that article?  ShadowHalo 08:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. After writing this article, I was kind of burned out on Wollstonecraft. I will try to get around to the VRW in a few weeks. I am working on another article pretty intently right now but it is almost done. Once it has gone through the review process, I will try and return to VRW. It is a very difficult text to write on; it is contradictory and covers a whole host of topics in a haphazard way. Awadewit 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final review 

message: Does it make more sense to say Wollstonecraft died of puerperal fever or septicemia? We originally stated puerperal fever, but it was changed to septicemia. I suppose both are equally correct. I was just wondering if there were any good reasons to favor one over the other. Kaldari 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe septicemia is more precise. The parts of the placenta that were not removed turned gangrenous; as I understand it, then that infection spread via her blood. Of course, I think all of this could be described as a puerperal fever. Aren't we all happy I did not put that description in? Awadewit 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the current version that y'all worked up -- Although the delivery seemed to go well initially, the placenta broke apart during the birth and became infected, a common occurrence in the eighteenth century. After several days of agony, Wollstonecraft died of septicemia on September 10.[33]  It strikes the right balance of graphic vs. informative, and the contextualization of the risks of childbirth in the 18th c is also good.  --lquilter 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death 

message: Does it make sense to say Wollstonecraft was born in "Spitalfields, England"? Would it be more correct to say "London, England" or even "Spitalfields, London"? I've never lived in Britain so I'm not sure what the correct terminology would be. Any Brits out there who could enlighten us? I believe the original wording was just "Spitalfields" which avoided the issue altogether. Kaldari 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that we should say she was born in London. Each of these little offshoots has its own identity and in the 18c in particular was not as connected to London as it might seem to be today. How about "Spitalfields, a suburb of London," (although "suburb" seems a little anachronistic to me) or maybe "Spitalfields, on the outskirts of London"? Awadewit 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your last suggestion: "Spitalfields, on the outskirts of London". Kaldari 19:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately "outskirts" gives a misleading impression of being quite some distance from the centre -- in fact Spitalfields is immediately east of and adjacent to the City of London. "Spitalfields, London" is the clearest phrase, I think. --mervyn 08:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "at the time considered on the outskirts of London"? Awadewit 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a bit wordy to me. Nor am I sure how accurate it is. Kaldari 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spitalfields 

message: Substituted at 21:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment