Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 1

Talk page archive (2004 - November 2006)

Source of original article, shortcomings.

Suspected Plagiairism

There are hints that portions of this article seems ripped from a centennial biography on Mary Wollstonecraft. Of note, the article mentions "these points have been conceeded in a world that has become a century older." This book was published over TWO centuries ago, in 1791.

Flaws

There are numerous small neglects in the text also. It mentions Wollstonecraft published an Answer. In fact, she published the first. The fact that a woman raised voice first on the issue may have emboldened more than a few.

Right. I love this article, as it is very informative on a very important early feminist. I fear, however, that: its style is not very encyclopedic, certain statements may border on unqualified POV, and a few facts seem to be simply incorrect. I'm doing a little research for another article concerning feminism at the moment, so I'm planning to make contributions to this article at the same time, but I'd like to know what other contributors think about this article in its current form. AdmN 17:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think there is too little in this article about her thoughts and ideas. very informative as a biography, though/ marxmax

It also reads like she had two daughters.. one with her de facto husband, and one with her married husband, although only Mary Shelley is named as being her daughter.

According to A History of Britain (see below), she died of septicaemia. Is it medically correct to say that she succumbed to puerperal fever? 24.5.54.111 22:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Identity of woman in image.

At Wikimedia Commons I have made a note that the image that has been used here seems to be mis-identified. As the declared source of this image indicates, it appears to be an image not of Mary Wollstonecraft herself, but of her daughter Mary Shelley, the the author of Frankenstein, and should be renamed there and replaced here, preferably with another image that could be uploaded to the Commons. I am removing it for now. ~ Kalki 18:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Johnson.

I am translating this article into Polish - it seems that link to Joseph Johnson is invalid. He couldn't publish Mary's book in 1787 when he was two...

Subscription required for Nation article.

[1] has 2 paragraphs visible for non-subscribers, the 2nd being only 1 sentence and the 1st mention of Mary. After that it has "This Page Available Only to Nation Subscribers".

Re: User talk:Jeandré#Subscription needed for Nation article?. Bgohla, the computer you're using may be logged in with a subscriber's account - is it at a University? — Jeandré, 2005-06-01t18:00z

In fact, yes. Didn't know that they had a subscription. Bgohla 18:48, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

And thay really don't, I just checked, now it's the same for me, only being able to see a few lines and then comes the "subscription needed"-notice. I read the entire article a few days ago, must be that thay won't let everybody browse their archives, sad. Bgohla 18:53, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

---

I wonder what a rigorous Irishwoman is. Might she have intellectual rigour or, rather, be vigorous? Or does it just mean a bit rough? www.danon.co.uk

Copyvio

Verifiable Plagairism

Most of the Marriage section is plagairized from the script of A History of Britain, episode Forces of Nature (2002).

• Forces of Nature: ...she seemed to have lost everything except her child: her faith in revolution, in the virtue of the people, her belief in the possibilities of an independent woman's life. Wikipedia: She had lost everything except her child: her faith in revolution, in the virtue of the people and in the possibilities of an independent woman's life.
• Forces of Nature: ...Godwin...a philosopher...was notorious for his rejection of romance as well as marriage... Though they'd agreed not to cohabit, the sworn enemy of matrimony and the feminist were wedded at Saint Pancras Church, and...relaxing into conjugal coziness. To the point where Godwin was prepared at least privately to admit the force of emotion as well as thought...which is what made the end so unbearable. Wikipedia: ..William Godwin, a philosopher who was notorious for his rejection of romance and marriage... Though they had sworn not to get married, the feminist and the enemy of matrimony were wedded at Saint Pancras Church and settled into conjugal happiness. At least in private, Godwin was prepared to admit the force of emotion as well as of thought...which made what was to come seem unbearably cruel.
• Forces of Nature: She is rightly remembered as the founder of modern feminism. Wikipedia: She is considered one of the founders of modern feminism.

24.5.54.111 22:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added a copyvio notice and listed at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. My first time, so despite reading up on the procedures I may not have gotten it quite right. With only one section implicated, and no URL to refer to, the standard instructions didn't seem to quite fit...? Cate8 July 9, 2005 04:32 (UTC)

As it's just this section that seems to be copied, could we simply remove it and carry on? It seems a shame not to have a visible article about her. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to edit the disputed section out, and removed the copyvio notice. Anyone who disagrees feel free to revert me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your removal of the section. But looking through the Talk page, there's been a lot of suspicion cast on more sections's abuse of copyrights. The latest suggestion to tear the page up and start over would be drastic, but at this point it's worth discussing. If we could at least identify a version that predates all the questionable material, I'd be in favor of reverting back to that. -Cate8 07:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin rewrote the entire article on July 17, 2005,[2] so I'm not sure how you could be under the impression that there was still copyrighted material in it. Kaldari 04:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Mary Wollstonecraft (Marriage section) "cribbed" (the original editor's characterization) from an episode of Simon Schama's History of Britain. See Wollstonecraft's Talk page for more details. (This item has also been discussed below in July 9th New Listings.) -Cate8 04:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Reviewing the copyvio issues

OK, it looks like there are two separate accusations of copyright violation that occured with this article. The first accusation of copyright violation was made in June 2005. A copyvio notice was added to the article in early July. On July 17, 2005, SlimVirgin rewrote the intro from scratch and then deleted the rest of the article.[3][4] On July 22, 2005, Cate8 inexplicably stated that she still suspected there were copyright violations in the article, even though the article had been reduced to a stub. No response was made to Cate8's accusation. The article remained a stub until November 3, 2005, when Drmillar wrote an entirely new (and rather lengthy) article.[5] The article has remained mostly unchanged since then, although on August 12, 2006, SlimVirgin reverted the intro back to the original stub intro that she had written in July 2005. Kaldari 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the article has been completely rewritten (twice) and consisted only of a stub written by SlimVirgin at the point at which Cate8 made the most recent accusation of copyright violation, I am going to remove the cv-unsure template from this talk page. Kaldari 04:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Impossible to edit

This is terrible writing and clearly plagiarized e.g. "Her father—a quick-tempered and unsettled man, capable of beating wife, or child, or dog—was the son of a manufacturer who made money in Spitalfields, when Spitalfields was prosperous. Her mother was a rigorous Irishwoman." ;-) It was all added in December 2002 by an anon.

I've rewritten the intro. I suggest we delete the rest and start again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits

The writing in this is a bit rich and POV. Not sure what to do about it, because there's a lot of it and it's good, but it's not encyclopedic. Any thoughts anyone? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest Edits

Could you please be more explicit about your sense of the genre as "encyclopedic"? In the OED the term denotes "universal in knowledge, very full of information, comprehensive." And therefore, I think the biography should be in the article. Could you please give feedback, perhaps we could improve the biography entry rather than simply removing it from the article.

Also, the total removal of the Bibliography and Introduction I contributed is unethical according to Wikipedia standards. I took the original introduction on the stub, and re-worked it to maintain the useful information; "slimvirgin" on the other hand, has completely removed the work, instead of building upon and editing the article to achieve the best from both parties.

Examples of how I intertwined our two Introduction articles are as follows:

1)“Died of puerperal fever”, was translated into complications following childbirth. I can say, “…and died on Septmber 10, 1797, from puerperal fever, a complication following childbirth.” if you like instead.

2)I said where she was born, London, which implies her British heritage (you say, “British Writer”).

3)We both mention “Vindications”, but because I added an entire section dedicated to this work, I felt it would be redundant to repeat the information in the introduction.

4)We both list the genres/disciplines she dedicated herself to.

5)Again, in the original introduction you have nicely denoted her childhood, but since the Biography follows, I tried to maintain what you originally said in the Biography section as well. I couldn’t keep the “chapel/Anglican” sentence because I was unable to find a literary reference for this through my sources, and you did not include one either.

6)Lastly, the information about Godwin and Shelley is again, tied into the Biography section I added.

As a result of the harsh and unethical removal of my work, I am restoring the article as to how it was posted in earlier November. Slimvirgin, and others for that matter, should contact the latest editor (who will be me this time) to synthesize a concept/section that both parties see fit for public view; we must never DELETE eachother's work, and we must ALWAYS work together.

Lastly, and this is minor, although popular belief has it that MW wrote, "A Vindication of the Rights of Women", it is in fact "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman"; I have double-checked and confirmed this in, "The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism" (a complete reference of this text can be found under "Wollstonecraft, Mary" in the reference section of the latest post).

In light of ethics, seeing as how I have restored my original post in early November, I have tried to go through each edit since my original post to see if I too have removed anyone's contributions. From what I have seen, it has been mostly maintenance of vandalism, and the minor "women/woman" issue covered in the previous paragraph. If in fact I have removed someone's contributions, please feel free to work with me so we can have the best of both of our posts working together for a clear and effective article. Slimvirgin, if you feel that I did not do justice to your original introduction section, again, please work with me so that we can produce the best article from both our works. In saying that, I reviewed the original stub maintained by slimvirgin with my colleagues before I started. I then showed them the updated introduction I produced including both of our contributions, and they agreed that I took your original stub introduction and intertwined it with my work successfully. Nonetheless, my offer still stands to work with you on the introduction if you are unsatisfied.

The ultimate goal is to have a sucessful, comprehensive article on Mary Wollstonecraft; I am proud of the group effort to maintain and improve the article that has ensued since my post. Please, lets continue to work together to maintain and improve our edition of Mary Wollstonecraft, to make sure all users and researchers have an abundance of information on MW at their fingertips. Drmillar 19:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Verifying references, plagiarism issues

I found Janet Todd's book at the library, so I have begun to verify the citations provided by Drmillar. It looks like the citations are accurate, at least for Todd's book. There are several instances, however, where I feel Drmillar's writing is a bit too close to the original source. Here are a couple of examples:

1. Mary's grandfather:
   • Our text: Mary's grandfather wanted his family to rise in the world, and desired a country retreat for his privileged son more than for himself; along with the city house in Primrose Street, he provided Edward's first farm in Essex, where Mary lived at age four and five, and where her other sister, Everina was born.
   • Todd's text: Since he wanted his family to rise in the world, he desired a country retreat even more for his priviledged son than for himself. So, along with the city house in Primrose Street, he provided for Edward John's family a farm in Essex... There Mary lived when she was four and five... In Epping, another sister, more flamboyantly named Everina, was born.
2. Failure of the farm:
   • Our text: The failure drove Edward's career across England and Wales, to poorer and more remote farms, eventually squandering his inheritance and ultimately making his children rootless.
   • Todd's text: The failure of the Barking farm began the zigzag of Edward's career across England and Wales. It made his children rootless and squandered his inheritance. Each farm he took was poorer and remoter than the last.
3. Elements of Morality:
   • Our text: She found his work very rational, and the book's arguments agreed with her view that pain, whatever its physical cause, was in God's plan and led to good character. She approved of Salzmann's opinion that happiness was not the measure of virtue and its aim was to insinuate a taste for domestic pleasures into the hearts of both parents and children. She kept Salzmann's moral stories and added one herself to persuade children to consider Indians their brothers, a more relevant tale for British than German youth; she also toned down the sentimental effusions and the ingratiating remarks about the upper orders.
   • Todd's text: She was glad to find it 'a very rational book'; it agreed with her view, wavering but still held on balance, that pain, whatever its physical cause, was in God's plan and led to good character. She approved, too, its opinion that happiness was not the measure of virtue and its aim to 'insinuate a taste for domestic pleasures into the hearts of both parents and children'. She kept the moral stories Salzmann had written and added one herself to persuade children to consider Indians their brothers, a more relevant tale for British than German youth. She toned down the sentimental effusions and the ingratiating remarks about the upper orders.

Kaldari 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kaldari, that would certainly count as plagiarism if a professional writer did it. Well spotted, and thank you for taking the trouble to find the book. My fear is that the rest of the article is also more-or-less copied. The writing is too academic, e.g. "The title echoes John Locke's Some Thoughts on Education, and maintains familiar ideas from the Lockean tradition: the ideal of a domestic education supervised by parents; the bourgeois distrust of servants; the banishment of improbable tales and superstitious accounts from the child's library; and the importance of an inflexible adherence to rules."

It's phrases like "the banishment of improbable tales" that make me suspicious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. From what I can tell, it seems minimal effort was put forth to write original prose. The Works section seems especially problematic. I'm going to go ahead and delete the Works section and then work on rewriting the Biography. Kaldari 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Update on plagairism issues - I have completely removed the Influence section and reduced the Works section to a list. I have also done a bit of editing on the Biography section to address the most egregious examples of plagairism that I have found. The Biography section should probably be rewritten further, but I don't think the remaining problems are significant enough to warrant removal of the section entirely. Kaldari 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be reverted to an earlier version, if one can be found, that's definitely free of what looks like plagiarism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Mary Wollstonecraft

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article

It may be useful to copy some of the text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Wollstonecraft in order to have something to work from. Obviously the text would need to be edited heavily so that it doesn't sound like something written 100 years ago. Kaldari 17:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)