Talk:The Woman's Bible/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 15:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Background

• "Lucretia Mott countered those who would put her in her place by quoting other, more relevant, Bible passages, or by challenging the original interpretation of the scripture." I have a very serious problem with this statement. Who is to say which Bible passage is or is not relevant?
• "Mott wrote Discourse on Woman which discussed Adam and Eve, the activities of various women who appear in the Bible, and argued that the Bible supported woman's right to speak aloud her spiritual beliefs." Who does "her" refer to here? Looks like it refers to Mott.
• "Lucy Stone worked and saved to go to college ...". We have a bunch of women's names thrown at us in this section, with no idea why they're relevant. Who was Lucy Stone, for instance?
• "By the 1850s, Lucretia Mott was expert at pinioning men who used Scripture against her." Not sure what that means. "Pinioning?

Revising Committee

• "... the committee wished to correct Biblical interpretation which was biased unfairly against women". Need to be very careful to remain neutral here. Whether the bias was fair or not is not a matter of fact, but of opinion.

Addressing issues brought up so far:

• Replaced "more relevant, Bible passages" with "other Bible passages".
• The phrase "woman's right to speak aloud her spiritual beliefs" is much like "Man's right to speak aloud his spiritual beliefs". Wouldn't you agree? The use of the word woman is similar to man standing in for mankind; in essence, the word woman here means womankind.
• Yes, I agree that the paragraph which included the name Lucy Stone was clunky—it was a grab-bag of factoids with poor reading flow. I have added some linking phrases to (hopefully) improve the situation.
• Swapped pinioning with its synonym disarming.
• Removed "unfairly".

That covers this first round of observations. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Revising committee (cont.)

• "Gage wrote that the double standard for morality hurt both sexes." It seems strange to wikilink the perfectly understandable "double standard", and doubly so when the sarticlew to which it's linked claims that the term was coined in the 1850s, given that Gage was writing towards the end of the 19th century.

• In the quotation attributed to Stanton that begins "We have made a fetich of the Bible long enough" the word "fetich" is linked to a wiktionary definition of "fetish". Again, fetish isn't a word that's particularly mysterious to a normak English speaker, but equally it's frowned on the wikilink from within quotations, as it's tantamount to reading the mind of the speaker. Assuming that Stanton did use that rather unusual spelling, it would be a good idea to flag that with a [sic], to prevent the idea that it's just a typo.

Reaction

• "Our politicians are calm and complacent under our fire but the clergy jump round the moment you aim a pop gun at them ...". Similar to my point above about linking terms within quotations, especially easily understood terms like "pop gun".

Legacy

• "Today, biblical scholarship by women has come into maturity, with women posing new questions about the Bible, and challenging the very basis of Biblical studies." Why is "biblical" capitalised the second time in this sentence but not the first?

Response to Round Two of GAN issues:

• About "double standard"—though sources show its use as early as 1872, in the sense of bimetallism (gold and silver in currency value), and 1912 in a socio-political sense, I will remove the link.
• Regarding the word "fetich": I will remove the wiktionary link and follow the word with the template [sic].
• I will remove the wikilink to pop gun.
• Going to lower case in article body instances of "biblical". Binksternet (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)