Wikipedia

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

< Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Men
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Alabamaboy in topic FAC discussion moved to this talk page
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Pasting in the meantime

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

GA Review

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion

Copyedit issues

Intro:

  • She turned his own definitions of the sublime and the beautiful that he had outlined in his A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1756) against him and revised them for her own ends.
Just sounds sinister to me..."for her own ends".
Revision: "By redefining the sublime and the beautiful, terms first established By Burke in his Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1756), she undermined his rhetoric as well as his argument." Awadewit | talk 01:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The fourth paragraph switches from past to present tense.
  • Also one excellent point made in the article was missing from the intro: As Wollstonecraft scholar Claudia Johnson has written, “as feminist critique, these passages have never really been surpassed”. This really seemed an important statement and might do well there.

First section

  • Most of those who came to be called radicals emphasized the same themes: "a sense of personal liberty and autonomy, a belief in civic virtue, and a hatred of corruption . . . the radical criticises the monarch, or the aristocracy, or both, and represents these institutions as encroaching upon the populace or upon its preserve, the House of Commons" and is also opposed to war, believing it to profit the "landed interest" only.
The sentence breaks up right around, "and represents". Verb doesn't agree.
Ah yes. I didn't match up the quote. Fixed. Awadewit | talk 01:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Also

  • The fourth paragraph of the last section seems to have quotes missing direct citations. ("lively and animated remarks" and "sworn foe")
  • This section also deviates from the rest of the article, as the larger quotes are not indented.
  • They are actually, but there seems to be a bug with the <blockquote> code - it doesn't indent away from pictures. They typeface is different and they are set off by colons and spacing, so I think it should be clear. (I am not a fan of c-quotes.) Awadewit | talk 01:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting this on hold, since these issues are all pretty small, and the overall research and organization of the article is excellent. If you have any questions about specific parts of the article you need a second opinion on, just ask. Wrad 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • What do you think about the organization of the "Political theory" section? Also, do you think that there is confusion regarding the issue of "emotion" and "sensibility"? It is covered both in "Sensibility" and "Gender and aesthetics". Let me know. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

On "Political theory": It looks like the "Attacks against rank and hierarchy" subsection may be mistitled. She's not really against it, she just has a different idea of how it should be done. Maybe "Attacks on aristocracy"? Also, the most confusing section would have to be "Republicanism". It talks about quite a variety of topics, kind of loosely connected. She defends individualism but focuses on the family. Is there any way those two points could mesh better? The tradition section seems pretty solid.

The last two section were the best of the entire article, I thought. I don't think you could ever confine emotion and sensibility to just one section with this piece, so I like the way you did it. Wrad 01:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Another problem: the lead is five paragraphs long, which is one more than WP:LEAD suggests. Wrad 02:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Another request: the reception section is organized in an odd way. From the intro, I kind of expected a positive to negative to positive outline of the public reaction. In other words, first they don't know who she is, so they like her, then they find out she's a woman, so they don't, then they decide it doesn't matter, and they like her. The section kind of skips over the initial stage, though. Wrad 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's a GA now. Congrats! I'm going to submit this series as a Featured topic. Wrad 04:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts, mostly about copyedits

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

Smashing work as always, Awad. A few notes:

  • In the first lead ¶: Wollstonecraft's was the first salvo in what became a pamphlet war sparked by the publication of Edmund Burke's Reflections… If it was a pamphlet war, wasn't Burke's pamphlet the first salvo? Maybe I'm confused.
  • Interesting - I see what you're saying, except as far as I know Burke didn't publish with the intention of starting a pamphlet war (although he should have known what would happen). So, can it be a salvo without intention? Awadewit | talk 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it can, and I think it often is. Rosa Parks didn't really intend to spark an entire movement, from my understanding. (And the white jackasses who tried to force her to move certainly didn't.) – Scartol · Talk 16:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • End of the lead: This analysis of the Rights of Men reigned until the 1970s, when feminist scholars began to read Wollstonecraft's texts with more attention and discovered their sophistication. I wonder if "discovered" is the right word here; that seems to suggest the unveiling of something absolute and universally recognized. Whereas "sophistication" seems a bit subjective. Maybe "called attention to their sophistication"?
  • I wonder if it might make sense to combine the two references to Paine's Rights of Men in the "Revolution Controversy" section? As a reader I was thrown a bit by going away from it and then coming back. (Then again, my mind works mostly chronologically; if thematic organization is your goal, go for it.)
  • The tense in "Burke's Reflections jumps around a bit: In Reflections he argues that citizens do not… and then later Burke criticized many British thinkers and writers… I wonder if this last sentence (and others, maybe) are referring to what he does in the text (in which case I think it belongs in the present), or outside of the pamphlet?
  • I fixed one. The rest seem correct to me - the literary present for the Reflections, the past for his views, as he is dead. Philosophical Enquiry is in the past perfect, to indicate that it was published before Reflections - I think this works. Awadewit | talk 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for using the passive voice there, Wollstonecraft! Now we'll never know who "suggested … [the idea] of publishing a short vindication of the Rights of Men." =)
  • Nice evasion - maybe no one did - maybe that was her way of shuffling off the idea of a woman publishing a political work onto someone other than herself. :) Awadewit | talk 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Composition and publication" section mentions that Wollstonecraft's was the first of the 70 or so pamphlets responding to Burke; this information is also in the third ¶ of the "Revolution context" section – intentional repetition?
  • In "Attack against rank and privilege": …the “want [i.e., lack] of natural affections… Maybe it's easier to just replace "want" with "[lack]"?
  • Since it is not precisely the same word and hardly as neutral as "she" for "I", I prefer to leave it in. It's pretty standard practice in scholarship, too. Let readers see the original writing - don't hide the author's words. Awadewit | talk 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • At the end of "Gender and aesthetics": He becomes the hysterical, illogical, feminine writer and Wollstonecraft becomes the rational, masculine writer. Ironically, in order to effect this transposition, Wollstonecraft herself becomes passionate at times. This is a bit confusing to me. I think I get what you're saying, but an example would be very helpful.
  • In "Reception and legacy": From this point forward in her career, she would be known. Is the conditional necessary here?
  • At the end of the article: In looking more closely at both her and Burke's texts, it is apparent that they share many rhetorical similarities and that the masculine/logic and feminine/emotion binaries are unsupportable. It's sourced, but the sentence style feels like OR. Maybe: "Critics who examined her and Burke's texts revealed a similarity of rhetoric and a dismantling of the masculine/logic and feminine/emotion binaries."?

Minor quibbles as usual. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Supplementary FAC comments by Qp10qp

Latest comment: 17 years ago38 comments3 people in discussion
  • 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.
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)
  • Is "graft" slang? In Britain it means "hard work".
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)
Yup, OED has it as colloquial of mid-19th US origin. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
My source uses "corruption". I was trying not to plagiarize. Other ideas? Awadewit | talk 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"political graft" disambiguates. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused - it's not linked. Awadewit | talk 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What does "hawkish" mean in this context? Is it related to War Hawk?
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)
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)

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)
"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)
I love "bellicose"! Changed. Awadewit | talk 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The article says that the second edition had Wollstonecraft's name on the title page. I assumed from that that her name was on a different page in the first edition, but reading on, I concluded that her name was not on the first edition at all. If so, might that not be stated specifically?
  • 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)
My fault; like an idiot, I missed that.qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Burke's book, despite being priced at an expensive three shillings, sold an astonishing 30,000 copies in two years.[5] Thomas Paine's rejoinder, The Rights of Man (1792), however, greatly surpassed it, selling upwards of 200,000 copies. I found this slightly odd, because logic would suggest something about Wollstonecraft's own rejoinder between those two. After all, the article is about her work; how many books Paine sold seems slightly beside the point. (By the way, was not the Paine published in 1791?)
  • 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)
OK.qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • British radicalism was effectively muted after these years, and it was not until the next generation that any real reform could be enacted. Which years? How long is a generation in this context?
  • 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)
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)
Yes, the Napoleonic Wars did almost all the radicals in. Awadewit | talk 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • until recently. Perhaps needs to be more precise; I'm assuming this means until the 1970s.
Fine.qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • she turns his own argument back on him. Which argument? In what way? Is she saying, "you're accusing women of being emotional, but look at you"? Or is she saying, "if you support the American revolution, why not the French"? One is slightly left to work it out oneself, I feel.
Fair enough.qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure from the amount of information given what the significance of the Regency Bill was in this context (the link didn't really enlighten me).
  • What is the significance of Liberty leading the people to this article? It's an ambiguous reference, I feel, because, despite the Phrygian cap, the 1830 revolution was not a republican revolution.
I'm not convinced. It's no big deal, though, just an illustration judgement. qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
  • There's a soggy patch at the end of the article which I believe was added during the FAC by reviewers. I haven't copyedited that in case it doesn't last. In my opinion, it is superfluous and superficial; but it's not the done thing to cut referenced material, I suppose. At the least, it needs intense rewriting, I think.
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)
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)

Well, featured topic next! Thanks goodness I've read most of the articles already. Great work once again. qp10qp 00:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Crumbs! qp10qp 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I know. Awadewit | talk 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC discussion moved to this talk page

Latest comment: 17 years ago49 comments4 people in discussion
  • As to your other point, I'm afraid that I must dispute it. This article relies on the most important Wollstonecraft scholarship on the Rights of Men. I did not see a trend in those works towards describing Wollstonecraft's VRM as "utilitarian" or "anticipating utilitarianism". Show me such a trend and we can find the most appropriate place to add it into the article, but a citation from an anthology is unconvincing to me. I have relied on works written by the foremost Wollstonecraft scholars. Anthologies are notorious for their inaccuracies since the editors are not experts in every field they must cover. The editor of the anthology you cited, Mary Briody Mahowald, appears to be an emeritus professor of bioethics. Awadewit | talk 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, in my opinion, the first paragraph of "Structure and major arguments" and the last paragraph of "Reception and legacy" deal amply with how scholars view the book now versus how it was viewed in the eighteenth century. And, of course, when one thinks about it, almost the entire page is "a modern view of the book's importance", since it is based on modern scholarship. Awadewit | talk 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, the line thing isn't that big a deal. I understand what she was using the lines for and simply believe stating what she was doing with the line (as the article does) is better than having them in the quote. But either way is ok with me. As for the citation I gave, it was merely an example to show that there is modern scholarship which places this work in a broader historical and cultural perspective. Other books that do this are Women and Men Political Theorists: Enlightened Conversations by Kristin Waters, Blackwell Publishing, 2000; Mary Wollstonecraft and the Critics, 1788-2001, by Harriet Devine, Routledge, 2003; A Routledge Literary Sourcebook on Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of ... by Adriana Craciun, Routledge, 2002. I could go on. Any section on "Reception and legacy" simply can not begin and end with that view from an author's contemporaries (especially when that author lived 200 plus years ago). I understand that "Structure and major arguments" covers some of the modern view of the work (albeit the stylistic reassessment), as does the last paragraph of the "Reception and legacy" section. But neither of these parts mention the work's true legacy and long-term cultural significance. You hint at this when you write about the "recent reevaluation of her text" but leave it at that. When I first raised this issue, I didn't realize this was be such a contentious point. I still don't understand why it is. --Alabamaboy 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) What broader historical and cultural perspective are you looking for? I am not aware of any "long-term cultural significance" that the book had - it was not that influential. Paine's Rights of Man was the most influential response to Burke. As for your sources:

  • MW and the Critics (I assume this is the article you are referring to) - This article discusses the Rights of Woman in relation to utilitarianism. This set of volumes is a series of famous reviews of Wollstonecraft's works and famous articles on her works. As you will notice, I have used the books published by many of these scholars, rather than a compendium such as this.
  • This 2-page introduction to an extract from the VRM does not appear to contain any crucial material that is not mentioned either in this article or the Mary Wollstonecraft biography. What do you feel should be included from this source?
  • This Routledge sourcebook is for the Rights of Woman and a google search does not turn up the word "utilitarianism" or "utilitarian" in it. I looked up each reference to the VRM in it, but I didn't see anything crucial that was missing in the article. Please tell me what specific ideas are missing.
Obviously, I want this article to be the best it can be. I'm just not sure what exactly it is you feel is missing. Let's work it out together. Awadewit | talk 01:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding me. I'm not supporting the utilitarianism argument. As I said above, that was merely an example from a recent book that mentioned the legacy of A Vindication of the Rights of Men. The other books I listed were provided because they mentioned different views on the legacy of this work. Let me be clear: I am not saying that anything about utilitarianism should be mentioned in this article. I am saying that the article lacks a modern view of this work's legacy. You said that you aren't aware of any "long-term cultural significance" that the book has. The books and sources I listed give examples of what these scholars believe to be the book's legacy. While the book's legacy isn't massive, it is there and should be given in this article.--Alabamaboy 22:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
What view specifically of the work's legacy is missing? As I said, I looked at these sources - I did not see anything crucial that was not in the article regarding either VRM or its legacy. Please list the specific ideas regarding the book's legacy that are missing from the article. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
These items are missing:
  • "Wollstonecraft's treatise was her first popular success and one of the earliest political essays by a woman." (Source is A Bookshelf of Our Own by Deborah G. Felder, Citadel Press, 2006, page 19.) Both of these points are important but you only cover the first part in the article where you say, "Most Wollstonecraft scholars now recognize it was this work that radicalized Wollstonecraft and directed her future writings." However, the second part should also be mentioned since that is part of the work's legacy.
  • Deborah G. Felder's "A Bookshelf of Our Own" is not the most reliable source for information on Wollstonecraft. Felder herself is a children's author and not a scholar, much less a Wollstonecraft scholar. None of the books that I have read in the past two years (not all of which are listed in this bibliography) by Wollstonecraft scholars claim that VRM is "one of the earliest political essays by a woman". Awadewit | talk 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You need to specifically go into how this work influenced and in part lead to the creation of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. The only time you mention this is earlier on, where you write "In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) and An Historical and Moral View of the French Revolution (1794), she extends these specific arguments into larger social and political contexts." Otherwise, anyone reading this article wouldn't realize that A Vindication of the Rights of Men influenced one of the greatest early works of feminist philosophy. For example, in Women Philosophers: Genre and the Boundaries of Philosophy by Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Westview Press, 2003, page 95, is says while Mary Wollstonecraft was conscious of the connection between writing style and sincerity, "it is in A Vindication of the Rights of Men that she first explicitly addresses the subject, and it is here that we are provided the key to understanding the second Vindication. The structural and stylistic connections between the two Vindications have not gone unnoticed. In 'Mary Wollstonecraft's Wild Wish,' Gunther-Canada argues that Wollstonecraft would never have written A Vindication of the Rights of Woman if she had not first written her response to Edmund Burke in A Vindication of the Rights of Men." That seems like a hell of a legacy to me and should be described in this article.--Alabamaboy 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not exactly clear to me what point you want to make with this quotation - are you pointing to Gunther-Canada's view or Gardner's view? On the very next page (96), Gardner writes that she does not wholeheartedly agree with Gunther-Canada's view that the two Vindications are so intimately connected. The other important idea to keep in mind is undue weight. I tried very hard to present only the consensus views of major Wollstonecraft scholars and any important minority views. That is what at issue here - to what extent does the article fairly represent Wollstonecraft scholarship?
  • Also, what connections between VRM and VRW would you propose be added into the article? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I added in the missing info to the article. If that paragraph remains in its overall form, I'll support the FA. If not, I'll oppose. And might I say I can't believe that something so simple ended up feeling like a mighty silly case of pulling teeth. When I raised this issue I had no idea it would be so contentious.--Alabamaboy 01:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I would like to remove your paragraph. I do not believe that it accurately represents Wollstonecraft scholarship. Let's look at it:

  • Overall, Rights of Men was far more recognized in its own time than today. - This is a vague sentence. The Rights of Men was far more popular in the eighteenth century than it is today but it is far more respected today. Your sentence does not establish this distinction, a distinction I tried to establish in the article.
Then what do you suggest? That was merely a seque sentence.--Alabamaboy 14:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Still, some scholars have stated that without first creating Rights of Men, Wollstonecraft would never have written her far more famous and influential feminist treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.<ref> ''Women Philosophers: Genre and the Boundaries of Philosophy'' by Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Westview Press, 2003, page 95-96.</ref> - You have written "some scholars", but you have only cited one source and that is not even the original material. This is Gunther-Canada's view and you are citing it from Gardner's book - how do you know for sure that Gardner is even accurately representing Gunther-Canada's view? Furthermore, the sentence suggests that significant number of scholars believe this - you have not presented evidence that this is the case.
  • Both essays cover similar issues of writing style and sincerity, so much so that it's been said that A Vindication of the Rights of Men, provides "the key to understanding the second Vindication."<ref> ''Women Philosophers: Genre and the Boundaries of Philosophy'' by Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Westview Press, 2003, page 95-96.</ref> - Again, the passive elides over the fact that you are presenting a single scholar's view. This grandiose statement is not something that I have seen made frequently (if at all). I am concerned that rather than relying on the best Wollstonecraft scholarship, which I have tried to do, you are turning to these broader, more diffuse texts. They do not demonstrate a trend of opinion among the experts - Wollstonecraft scholars. Awadewit | talk 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added in the original source. This is a well-referenced addition to the article and brings in a perspective which your article lacks. I have read other instances of this belief that the first Vindication lead to the second; this is not some unknown scholarly view. And Gunter-Canada, who also wrote Rebel Writer: Mary Wollstonecraft and Enlightenment Politics, is one of the leading scholars on Wollstonecraft (as evidenced by the number of other scholars who reference her works). Negating the view that A Vindication of the Rights of Men laid the groundwork of the second Vindication is wrong.--Alabamaboy 14:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that simply asserting you have read other instances of this belief is not good enough. You need to provide evidence that this is a widely-held view among Wollstonecraft scholars.
  • From your addition of the original source, it does not appear that you have read Gunther-Canada's book - is that correct? (You write "Qtd in..) It is never a good idea, as I stated before, to rely on someone else's presentation of an idea when at all possible. You seem to be relying on whatever is available through google books.
  • What is important regarding Gunther-Canada's view of VRM is whether other scholars refer to that view (that the VRM is the key to understanding the VRW), not just whether they refer to that book. So far, you have presented one example of a scholar referencing it, who then goes on to disagree with it. This does not convince me that Gunther-Canada's is a "widely-held" view. This looks to me like you are trying to give undue weight to this one view that you happened to find.
  • Finally, the article does not "negate the view" that VRM laid the groundwork for the VRW - that is a strawman argument. Awadewit | talk 15:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have read the book, which is why I first raised this info of the Rights of Men's legacy (FYI, Wendy Gunther-Canada is a Univ. Alabama Birmingham professor, which is why I first read the book). Unfortunately, I no longer have access to a copy, which is why I didn't reference the book in the article. But the article of hers I did reference was available to me and it sums up her view nicely. As for Gunther-Canada, do a lit review search on her and Wollstonecraft. You will see how many times she pops up in the scholarly literature. I also find it insulting that you believe I am arguing with whatever I find. I raised a simple, relatively minor issue with the article and you refused to consider it. While I respect the work you've done on Wikipedia, you seem to have problems with anyone having a differing view that you on what the scholarship says on particular subjects, along with issues of WP:OWN. Anyway, I have provided referenced information to the article. I'm not pretending it is the definitive majority view in the scholarly world, but it is a view that should be mentioned in passing in the article (which is what the article now does).--Alabamaboy 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

  • I am happy to know that you have read Gunther-Canada's book. I did do research on her book - I read several reviews of it that were, on the whole, flattering.
  • Your previous posts, however, did suggest that you were arguing with whatever you could find. You cited two clearly unsuitable sources (one anthology by a bioethics professor and one book by a children's author) amongst other sources. What was I supposed to conclude?
As I didn't have the original book, I was looking for other sources for the information about the book's legacy. However, they are not "clearly unsuitable sources." Those books were published by reputable publishing companies. While I grant that there are other sources I'd prefer more than these, these are not "unsuitable." That is merely your opinion.--Alabamaboy 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • They are clearly unsuitable and a quick internet search easily proves them so - it is not "merely my opinion". They were not written by Wollstonecraft scholars and one was not even written by a scholar at all; this makes them unsuitable per WP:V and WP:RS. When there is so much excellent scholarly work published on Wollstonecraft, there is no reason to use works such as those. Awadewit | talk 23:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You have a very wrong view of WP:V and WP:RS. They say nothing at all along the lines of that.--Alabamaboy 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There is really nothing left to say if you do not agree that the best sources for this article are those written by Wollstonecraft scholars and published by reputable presses. Awadewit | talk 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue of the legacy or influence of the VRM is not a "minor" issue, as you call it. You want to insert a paragraph claiming that without the VRM, there would have been no VRW. That is a major claim and needs to be verified with more than one source.
I wrote that "some scholars" believe that, and the citation given shows that one major scholar on this subject clearly believes that. I also provided extremely valid cites to other sources showing the influence of the first Vindication upon the second, which is not a minority claim.--Alabamaboy 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You wrote in the article: Still, some scholars have stated that without first creating Rights of Men, Wollstonecraft would never have written her far more famous and influential feminist treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. - That is a very specific claim and you have provided only one source for it. Saying that VRM influenced VRW is different from saying that without writing VRM, Wollstonecraft would not have written VRW. Awadewit | talk 23:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You claim that I am "refusing to consider" your point. Again, that is not true. I am simply asking you to provide evidence that this is a predominant opinion among Wollstonecraft scholars. One reference is not enough - it is undue weight - especially for a claim so large.
Evidence has been provided.--Alabamaboy 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it has not - see various arguments. Awadewit | talk 23:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you cannot demonstrate that this is a dominant view, you always have the option of demonstrating that it is an important minority view. However, as not all minority views are worthy of inclusion in this article, you need to make a case as to why these statements, if they are not the majority view, should be included. Demonstrating that they are often quoted as important minority views would be a start. (Gardner quotes to disagree, for example, but that is just one person.)
I never said this was the majority view. But opinion that the second Vindication wouldn't have been written without the first is an important minority view and should be in the article. The citations I gave prove that. As for the view that the first vindication influenced the second, that is a majority view, of which I've provided some cite already. Other citations include Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: A Sourcebook by A. Craciun, Routledge, 2002, page 9, says that Wollstonecraft expanded the "revolutionary Rights of Men argument to include women" in the second Vindication. The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft edited by Claudia L. Johnson, Cambridge University Press, page 32, describes how Wollstonecraft developed her defense of the ideals of the Revolution in Rights of Men she then applied those same ideals to women in the second Vindication. The problem with your article, as I've stated, is you make is sound like Rights of Men existed within a vaccuum with regards to Wollstonecraft's other work. The legacy of this work is it helped pave the way for one of the most important feminist essays in history. Anyway, based on the proof I've provided, it is now up to you to show that consensus is against having this information in the article.--Alabamaboy 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How do the citations you provided prove that this an important minority view? Your single citation only proves that one person (Gardner) disagrees with the view the VRW and VRM are intimately connected.
  • I do not believe that the article presents the work in a vacuum. As I stated at the beginning of this conversation, the "Historical context", the "Major arguments", and the "Reception" sections all discuss the mileu and extensions of Wollstonecraft's book. I assume the passage from Alan Richardson's essay in the CC you are referring to is this one:

Writing in the brief period between the fall of the Bastille and the full-blown British reaction against the French Revolution, Wollstonecraft attacks the inequitable system of female education for its subversion of the republican values of liberty and equality. Having developed a defense of the ideals of the Revolution - 'the rights of men and the liberty of reason' - two years before in A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790), Wollstonecraft now demands civil rights and equal educational provisions for women in the name of those same ideals. Adapting (as had Macaulay) Rousseau's standard of education for active citizenship developed throughout Emile, Wollstonecraft nevertheless relentlessly attacks Rousseau for limiting such an education to boys, consigning girls to a subservient 'education for the body' alone...." (32-33)

To me, that would be a disingenuous reference. The point of that section of the essay is not about the connections between VRM and VRW, but rather about the relationship between Wollstonecraft's republicanism and her advocacy of female education. What do others think? Awadewit | talk 23:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on addition to article

I've inserted a break above so aid discussion and moved the relevant discussion points to Talk:A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men#FAC_discussion_moved_to_this_talk_page (I moved this info because it was cluttering up the page and seemed more relevant to the article's talk page than here). Awadewit and I have presented different sides on an the addition of this paragraph to the article (not that I've had to reform the references to people can see them):

Overall, Rights of Men was far more recognized in its own time than today. Still, some scholars have stated that without first creating Rights of Men, Wollstonecraft would never have written her far more famous and influential feminist treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.(ref "Mary Wollstonecraft's 'Wild Wish': Confounding Sex in the Discourse on Political Rights" by Wendy Gunther-Canada, from Feminist Interpretations of Mary Wollstonecraft edited by Maria J. Falco, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996, page 61.)(ref Women Philosophers: Genre and the Boundaries of Philosophy by Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Westview Press, 2003, page 95-96.) Both essays cover similar issues of writing style and sincerity, so much so that it has been said A Vindication of the Rights of Men provides "the key to understanding the second Vindication," (ref Women Philosophers: Genre and the Boundaries of Philosophy by Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Westview Press, 2003, page 95-96.) especially regarding the "general social and political principles which underlay A Vindication of the Rights of Woman." (refWomen's Political and Social Thought: An Anthology by Hilda L. Smith, Indiana University Press, 2000, page 155.)

Arguments for and against are on the article's talk page. We are asking for people to come to a consensus on whether this information is acceptable and neither of us will back down on this. Please comment on the talk page at . Thanks.--Alabamaboy 00:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Responses from other editors

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)

  • 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)

Compromise version

I have added a compromise version of Alabamaboy's paragraph to the article. This version hopefully avoids the problems of Alabamaboy's version and presents the issue for what it is: a subject of debate. After reading some of the cited sources, I do not believe that they justify the overall impression that Alabamaboy's version presented. Also, it should be noted that Alabamaboy seriously misquoted the Gardner source. The actual quote says that Rights of Men provides "the key to understanding the FORM OF THE second Vindication." I believe my compromise version also does a better job of integrating the idea into the existing article, as before it discussed the idea in one paragraph and then hinted at it again at the end of the next paragraph. In this version it is grouped together in one place. Kaldari 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the compromise version, which covers all my concerns on what this article lacked. And for what it's worth, the misquotation was a mistake. I guess when I was typing in the quote I left out those words. My apology.--Alabamaboy 17:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the new version: Some scholars have even argued that without first creating ''Rights of Men,'' Wollstonecraft would never have written her far more famous and influential [[feminist]] treatise ''[[A Vindication of the Rights of Woman]].''<ref>"Mary Wollstonecraft's 'Wild Wish': Confounding Sex in the Discourse on Political Rights" by Wendy Gunther-Canada, from ''Feminist Interpretations of Mary Wollstonecraft'' edited by Maria J. Falco, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996, page 61.</ref><ref>''Women Philosophers: Genre and the Boundaries of Philosophy'' by Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Westview Press, 2003, page 95-96.</ref> Although the connection between the two works is often debated, some scholars believe that ''Rights of Men'' lays out many of the social and political principles which underlay ''Rights of Woman''.<ref>''Women's Political and Social Thought: An Anthology'' by Hilda L. Smith, Indiana University Press, 2000, page 155.</ref>

  • The first sentence is still a problem - two citations have been given to support the "some scholars" claim, but they actually reference the same person - Gunther-Canada. One source is Gunther-Canada and the other quotes her. This is only Gunther-Canada's view, as far as I can tell. I cannot find anyone else who makes the claim that Wollstonecraft would not have written the VRW without the VRM. There is - as yet - no evidence to support the "some scholars" claim. Nor do I think that this claim is giving the reader any important information - it is not explaining the connections between VRM and VRW. It is fluff right now.
    • I have removed the redundant secondary source. I agree the sentence is not especially important to the article, but the opinion it presents is interesting (both to potential readers and other Wollstonecraft scholars such as Gardner). Kaldari 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The first issue is whether the article can support the claim it is making "some scholars claim that MW would not have written the VRW without first writing the VRM". Currently we only have one citation for that, so currently that statement, as it stands, is false. I have scoured my sources and found no other support for it. That is one reason why I am so concerned about including it - at this point it is unsupported.
        • I wouldn't characterize it as false. "At least one" = "some". I'll concede that "some" generally implies more than one, but to say that the claim is outright false simply because we only have one citation seems a bit WikiLawyerish. If Gunther-Canada's opinion was totally unreasonable, I would agree with your objection, but it's not like it's completely out in left field. Keep in mind I'm trying to keep at least some of the import of Alabamaboy's addition so that we can reach a compromise that is mutually agreeable. Do you really feel like the statement is that unacceptable? If it's just the specific wording, can you think of another way to phrase it that doesn't completely undercut the idea Alabamaboy is trying to present (although perhaps too strongly)? Kaldari 20:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
          • "One" is not equal to "some" (we only have evidence for one). The reason I am being so "stubborn", as Alabamaboy characterized it, about this is because the claim "MW would not have written the VRW without the VRM" is an extraordinary claim. As the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Currently, the article includes no evidence whatsoever to back up this assertion nor does it include any other citations to back up its claim of "some scholars". The article cannot claim that MW would not have written one of the most important works in feminist philosophy (VRW) without writing VRM without some sort of evidence or some more backing. After an exhaustive search of my sources, I have found no other support for this statement (which I find highly speculative anyway, if not totally absurd, but that is really beside the point). If there is support for it, perhaps someone else can find it. I made a good faith effort to find support for it. Awadewit | talk 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm surprised you consider Gunther-Canada's statement an extraordinary claim. It doesn't really seem that outlandish to me. As Gunther-Canada states, Rights of Men proved the necessity for Rights of Woman. Regardless, I have edited the sentence to specifically state that it is Gunther-Canada who makes this argument and I believe it is phrased in the most incredulous tone possible. Is that any closer to being an acceptable compromise? Kaldari 15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
              • I will do my best to explain. The claim being made is not exactly as you paraphrased it. The claim being made is that MW would not have written the VRW without first writing the VRM. The reason that this is extraordinary, and frankly absurd, is that there is absolutely no way to prove it. We cannot go back in time and force MW not to write VRM and see if she would have written the VRW anyway. It is pure speculation on Gunther-Canada's part, speculation for which the wikipedia article provides absolutely no backing whatsoever. What I am beginning to think is that Alabamaboy wants a description of the connections between VRM and VRW, not a description of VRM's "legacy" (a misleading word, as it implies something far grander than an influence on one book). Retaining this statement does nothing to further that goal (a very difficult one, by the way), as it is empty speculation - it contains no details regarding the exact nature of the connection between VRM and VRW. Awadewit | talk 19:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The second issue is how many scholars think it is interesting - you wrote that other Wollstonecraft scholars such as Gardner think it is interesting. Which ones besides Gardner? If it is just her, then perhaps it is not that interesting. Such alternative timelines are impossible to prove, so I wonder just many people have found this statement interesting. Such statements offer fictional universes - I'm not sure how useful they really are to readers. Without convincing proof that scholars themselves find this a helpful interpretation, I see no reason to keep it. Do we have "what if Germany had won WWII?" in the WWII article? Awadewit | talk 19:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Even if Gardner is the only scholar who thinks it's interesting, I think it's interesting and Alabamaboy thinks it's interesting. Surely some of our readers would think so as well, don't you think? Is your main concern: a)that it adds nothing to the article, b)that the wording of the sentence is weak/misleading, or c)that Gunther-Canada's opinion is off-base? Kaldari 20:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't think it matters if you or I or Alabamaboy think it is interesting (as I said - I think the point is akin to asking "what is Germany won WWII - it is not appropriate for the article) - it only matters what the experts think is interesting. This detail a) adds nothing and d) cannot be supported (as far as I can tell). I will forced to oppose this article if the sentence remains, because I know that it is unsupported. Awadewit | talk 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The second sentence has now gone too far in the other direction. Of course there are connections between VRM and VRW - I had vaguely alluded to them in the article before. It is not the connection per se that is debated - it is the extent and the nature of the connection.
    • I have changed the second sentence per your suggestion. I agree I was being overly-conservative in the wording (mainly to address your concerns). Kaldari 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be my proposal for the final paragraph:

While most of the early reviewers of the ''Rights of Men'', as well as most of Wollstonecraft's biographers, criticized the work's emotionalism, and juxtaposed it to Burke's masterpiece of logic, there has been a recent reevaluation of her text. In looking more closely at both her and Burke's texts, it has become apparent to critics that they share many rhetorical similarities and that the masculine/logic and feminine/emotion binaries are unsupportable.<ref>Sapiro, 25; 186-87.</ref> Most Wollstonecraft scholars now recognize it was this work that radicalized Wollstonecraft and directed her future writings, particularly ''[[A Vindication of the Rights of Woman]]''. It is not until after the half-way point of ''Rights of Men'' that she begins the dissection of Burke's gendered aesthetic; as Claudia Johnson contends, “it seems that in the act of writing the later portions of ''Rights of Men'' she discovered the subject that would preoccupy her for the rest of her career”.<ref name=Johnson26/> Although the precise ties between ''Rights of Men'' and ''Rights and Woman'' are debated, the ''Rights of Men'' lays out many of the social and political principles which underlay the ''Rights of Woman''.<ref>MacDonald and Scherf, "Introduction", 11ff.</ref>

The new revised revised version still works for me. I wasn't ever wedded to any particular form of the sentences, merely to informing that this work did indeed have an important legacy. The new language still expresses what needs to be said.--Alabamaboy 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been reading over our debate. I think that you want a discussion of VRM's connection to VRW rather than a discussion of VRM's "legacy" (as it really had none). Is that correct? If this is correct, we may have found a way forward. An incredibly difficult one, but one nonetheless. I did once try to write on this relationship, but the views of scholars are so disparate as to make it nearly impossible. That is why I retreated to vague statements. Awadewit | talk 19:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the legacy of this work as the connection to VRW. Unfortunately, I did an incredibly poor job communicating this and confused the issue at points. Do you feel the current consensus language accomplishes this? Just FYI, it works for me.--Alabamaboy 01:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that we are now agreed that what needs to be better expressed in the article are the connections between VRM and VRW? If that is the case, what do you think about adding it my list of things to improve here? Because of the huge debate below over AE/BE, I am being drawn away from issues of substance like this. What I can tell you is that describing the connection between the two works is actually quite difficult - there are a lot of different opinions. That is why I left it so vague. However, I can go over all of my notes again and write out a new paragraph specifically on the connections between VRM and VRW. I think that one vague paragraph and one detailed paragraph would be better than two vague paragraphs. This will take me some time, though, so I don't mind if you still "oppose" the article. Awadewit | talk 01:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit, while I've disagreed with some of the ways you've handled discussions and such on Wikipedia, I've always found you to be an extremely honest editor. I also understand that the AE/BE debate has consumed a lot of your time (and I personally can't believe it has gone on as it has). If you say you'll address this in the near future, I believe you. I will remove my oppose and I look forward to seeing what you can work up. --Alabamaboy 20:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men/Archive_1&oldid=1136488377"