Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft

National spelling

• There's been a minor revert war over the English/American spelling issue. The article was written in American English and an editor changed it to English. With respect to the long-time editors here, I think the English variety ought to be used. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English basically says:

If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect. ... Proper names should retain their original spellings, for example, United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force. Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country.

And yes, it says "Stay with established spelling" if there is no reason to change. But that's later in the guidelines, and the guidelines state that These guidelines are given roughly in order of importance; those earlier in the list will usually take precedence over later ones. But I think Shelley's lifelong identity with and residency in England is an identifiable tie to that spelling, which is a fine enough reason to change, I think. This isn't a case where the article subject is basically not national-specific, and there's no clear reason to prefer any spelling. At least, could we please talk about it here? --lquilter 12:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wollstonecraft was British, but she is well known and read throughout the English-speaking world. Would you really consider Wollstonecraft a "topic specific to a particular English-speaking country"? I wouldn't. Kaldari 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, changing the spelling of the words is not the only thing that would have to change in the article. A national dialect is NOT only defined by its spelling - syntax and vocabulary would have to be changed as well. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English is a "guide" not a policy. I feel that it is a rather absurd "policy" because if one were to literally follow it in Wollstonecraft's case (and by the way it is Mary Wollstonecraft, not Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley as suggested in one of the comments above), the entire article should be written in eighteenth-century British English. I don't think anyone wants me to do that. Moreover, Wollstonecraft did not have a life-long identification with England. She lived in France for several years and was an avid supporter of the French Revolution. Eighteenth-century "people of letters" were not as nationalististic as nineteenth or twentieth-century "people of letters." The nation-state did not really come into its own until the nineteenth century. See all the scholarship on the rise of nationalism and the nation-state. Finally, I feel that it would be much more productive if people contributed content to the page rather than quibbling with its spelling.Awadewit 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

MisfitToys has changed the default date style to European (along with some other questionable edits). Personally I don't care much which style is used, but considering this was an undiscussed and somewhat provocative edit, I am certainly willing to change it back if anyone wants. Changing between spelling variations and date formats without discussion is not civil behavior, IMO, and not in any way helpful to Wikipedia. Kaldari 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I for one would prefer that the date style stays as it is; she was European and a significant person here, and I find it peculiar that anyone (let alone someone who claims not to "care much which style is used") should advocate applying any other style. Sorry. Carbonix 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any particular style. I'm advocating the original style the article was written in. As the Wikipedia Manual of Style states: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another." Kaldari 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that cases like Shakespeare and so on get assigned to British English, but I think the advantages of having a clear rule are huge. The case of British literary figures is the least clear-cut, but having the rule for other cases such as Tony Blair or Dallas, Texas is definitely a good thing. Also, I don't think anybody is expected to write in a foreign variety of English [added: if they don't know how. Joeldl 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)] The rule just means that other editors are justified in changing what you've written. That's not tantamount to saying you've done anything wrong. Unless a specific exception can be worked out for historical literary figures, we should just leave the rules as they are. Joeldl 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also prefer that the dates stay in the style in which they were originally written so that the dialect remains consistent. Also, although Wollstonecraft is European, do we have any evidence that she wrote dates in this way? This entire argument, as I outlined earlier, has flawed premises - to write in contemporary British English simply because Wollstonecraft wrote in eighteenth-century British English makes no sense. The dialects have differences, thus, if the point of writing in dialect is to remain "true" to the person, writing in contemporary British English does nothing of the sort. Under this logic, Shakespeare's page should be written in Early Modern English and Chaucer's page should be written in Middle English. I cannot believe that we are spending so much time discussing this. Could we please try to improve the page's content? Thanks. Awadewit 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To some extent, the benefit of assigning historical figures to the present-day country that is the heir of the one they belonged to, is having a clear rule. Just because the rule is artificial in some cases doesn't mean it's wrong. This is something I can live with. Conversely, if they're writing about an American figure in, say, 1650, Americans get to write in American English even though the colonies belonged to Britain. If nobody cares, just stick with the way things were. If people do disagree, then let the ones who are for British spelling win. (I'm Canadian, by the way.) Joeldl 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this whole "policy" privileges English speakers. We can't write the Dante page in Italian or the Victor Hugo page in French, for example. What about their linguistic rights? See the absurdity? Awadewit 12:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, for Dante and Hugo, there's no preferred variety of English, so you try not to change things other people have written, unless you're doing it in order to prevent a mix of words like "color" and "honour". In that case, the rule is, keep the article in the state it's been in for a long time, but if there's disagreement about that, return to the first major contributor. As I said, I don't see anything absurd about having an article about Dallas use American conventions. It's true that when the rule is applied to Shakespeare, the result seems a bit unfair, but the advantage of having a clear rule is enormous. I'm not saying that it has anything to do with the kind of English M. W. wrote in, just the fact that she was English, and is therefore an England-related topic. If people change the spelling to British, just let them do it. Joeldl 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I might add that in an article about a Welsh-language writer, British spelling would be appropriate, and for a Navajo-language writer, American spelling. Joeldl 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Apart from this discussion, I can't find any past controversy over date formatting here; the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formats related to topics, which suggests by inference that if British English is used in the article, then British date formatting should also be used. And an article about someone who was British certainly should use British English - which I believe would be the version predominantly spoken in France, as well. (I'd also be curious to know what was regarded as a questionable edit on my part.) MisfitToys 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

British English is not used in this article. The article has always been in American English except for a few reverted edits about a week ago. Thus by your own argument the date style should also be American. The other questionable edits I was referring to were the excessive links mentioned in the discussion section below. Kaldari 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you'll notice, I just argued that British English should be used. MisfitToys 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Who's quibbling with the spelling here? The consensus on Wikipedia is clear that the spelling should reflect the nationality of the subject as demonstrated by Iquilter above. I agree with Joeldl that the advantages of the guidelines are that they prevent long winded disscussions like this and should therefore be adhered to. However, I don't see it as unfortunate that Shakespeare's article is written in B English, as he is regarded in Britain as a national icon. How would Americans like it if George Washington's article was written in British English? - to cite a figure of equivalent national pride. When I am editing say Nathaniel Hawthorne, I respect wiki policy and write in the American style IN THE FIRST PLACE. It is irrelevent that Wollstoncraft was a radical figure and a francophile who fervently supported the French revolution or whatever - That does not make her any less English. (The concept of being British would not have occured to her as the United Kingdom was not created until 1800), just as today it does not make one any less British if you don't happen to support the monarchy. The argument that Wollstonecraft wrote in archaic eighteenth century English unfamiliar to modern British ears, doesn't wash either. Her contemporary, Maria Edgeworth wrote in a style that is not so dissimilar to how some educated British people converse today. I congratulate Awadewit for her work in attaining featured article status for Wollstonecraft but I think she should concede defeat on this one if she wants people to focus on content. This issue will not go away as long as the present wikipedia policy stands. This is not simply a petty question of ise over ize, there is a principle at stake here. I for one don't want to see Wikipedia used as a tool to promote American world hegemony over language as well as foreign policy. That would clearly constitute NPOV. Natalieduerinckx 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I should add that it's not unheard of for writers to be forced to change their spelling style for a particular publication in a particular country. Many British authors have their spelling changed for the U.S. editions of their books, and vice versa. Now, I don't necessarily agree that authors should have to do that, because I pretty much think that if you write a book, it should be the way you wanted it. BUT, what you write on Wikipedia doesn't belong to you, and if you're writing about Dallas, Texas, you can expect that in the long run, most editors and readers will be American, and a lot of people are probably going to write things after you, so it's okay to decide that it's going to be American spelling, since one has to be chosen. On the other hand, I disagree totally with a comment made previously that France is a British topic. That would be egregiously unfair. This argument about what kind of English is most often learned there is really a red herring. In the long run, bandying about extreme arguments like that one will make non-British editors less willing to accept the system at all, which is very fair and as it stands, and we know who would outvote whom if there were no system. Joeldl 20:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I tire of this, but I will respond again.

• 1) Spelling DOES NOT a dialect make. On no page written in "British English" have I yet seen reflected the syntax and vocabulary of modern British English. Please talk to a linguist or read up on what a dialect is.
• 2) The article was originally written in American English and, as the policy states, it should remain in the language of the original contributor.
• 3) I did not say that Wollstonecraft wrote in archaic English, but eighteenth-century English is indeed different. Anyone who has taught it (as I have) knows that students have a difficult time understanding it precisely because words have slightly different meanings, connotations and the syntax is alien to them.
• 4) I am no fan of American hegemony either (we export McDonald's and Wal-Mart for god's sake, how embarrassing), but I am a fan of a universal language. It would be so much easier to communicate. I'm an idealist that way, I suppose. Perhaps all of wikipedia should be written in Esperanto?
• 5) Finally, I would like to point out that the bulk of the articles I contribute to wikipedia are going to be on eighteenth-century British figures and texts because that is my expertise, but because I speak American English, they are going to be written in American English. Most of the pages I have worked on or am working on were nearly empty when I got to them and without my edits there would be virtually no information there at all. Furthermore, there is no community of people helping me out on these pages. I am beginning to resent the implication that my contributions are part of an American hegemony rather than valuable additions to wikipedia that no one else is bothering to make. I am writing about British figures, after all; some might argue that I am promoting a British literary canon at the expense of an American one, that my contributions actually represent a British hegemony, of all things. Again, I would urge those of you who know something about Wollstonecraft to improve the page. You can all also come and oppose Anna Laetitia Barbauld at FAC since it is also written in American English.
• 6) One other small detail, "Britain" was first created in 1707. Scotland, England and Wales were joined by the Act of Union.

Awadewit 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't until The Act of Union 1800 joining Ireland to the UK that modern Britain was formed. Why does Awadewit find the policy so difficult to accept? The priority is nationality over the spelling of the original contributer. I did say that Awadewit should be congratulated for her effort and I have not changed the spellings as I know that both ise and ize are acceptable in British English. Of course Awadewit is going to contribute in American english, but if her subject is British then people will change it Natalieduerinckx 10:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that you would find many scholars who would dispute you on the issue of when "Britain" was first formed. I will give one example. From Linda Colley's Britons: "Great Britain was invented in 1707 when the Parliament of Westminster passed the Act of Union linking Scotland to England and Wales. From now on, this document proclaimed, there would be 'one united kingdom by the name of Great Britain'." (11) One can make an argument for 1536, 1707 and 1800, I think, but the most common date, I believe, is 1707. Also, I don't think the policy on national dialects is at all clear, because as I read it, the page is supposed to remain as the original contributor began it. Second, I outlined all of the reasons why I think the policy on writing a page in the dialect of the historical figure is itself absurd in my previous postings. But I am done with this debate. I have made all of the relevant points. I would rather write pages. Awadewit 11:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, "ize" and "ise" are both acceptable in UK English according to the Oxford English Dictionary (See the introductory notes). The OED uses "ize". Since I believe all of the spelling differences relevent to this article involve "ize" vs "ise", it seems this is actually a non-issue, as "ize" is perfectly acceptable on either side of the pond. Kaldari 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

British grammar might include "he will do" instead of "he will", or "coffee with sugar in" instead of "coffee with sugar in it". I feel sorry for people like Awadewit, but the advantages of having a clear rule applied uniformly on Wikipedia supersedes the existence of a handful of American specialists on British topics or vice versa, and it's more important to have the article on Dallas written in American spelling than it is to avoid changing other people's spelling (once, if the rule is adhered to). As for "ise" or "ize", since there's no real difficulty in understanding either form for anybody, and -ize is acceptable in British English, I agree that -ize should probably be left as it is, since there was no need to change it in the first place. (That doesn't mean that I think articles that start life with -ise should change.) Joeldl 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, Awadewit, actaully the Manual of Style says " there is certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia, as listed here. These guidelines are given roughly in order of importance; those earlier in the list will usually take precedence over later ones", and at number 2 is "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country" and at number 5, last in the list, is "Follow the dialect of the first contributor". So policy actually states that this article, about a British author, should be in British English. 82.32.238.139 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Linking

Please do not overlink this page and please be sure that if you are linking to a page that it is indeed relevant. Thanks. Awadewit 03:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some of the excessive links. If you notice more, please go ahead and remove them. Kaldari 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on main page

The first picture encountered in the article has been hacked.

Also, what's this about "jew convert"? in the leading paragraph? (2/20/07)

(27 April 2007 – 10 September 2008) huh? I clicked to see today's features, and someone who's a idiot decided to edit the dates to (27 April 2007 – 10 September 2008) Oh c'mon. Change it thanks

I would like to thank the tireless army of volunteers who are keeping up with the vandals. Awadewit 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

People are vandalizing again. Could some administrator lock this page, please? Volunteers can't keep track on every change. Kystilla 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We generally avoid protecting or semi-protecting pages that are featured on the main page, especially the featured article of the day. ShadowHalo 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely the featured page articles are the ones that should be protected. If people are genuinely interested then they can register. Natalieduerinckx 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and the featured articles of the day are supposed to showcase that. Regardless, the Mary Wollstonecraft talk page is not the place to discuss policy changes. Go to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article or talk to Raul654 if you want to discuss protecting featured articles of the day. ShadowHalo 17:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, you can add your voice regarding article protection at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. –Outriggr § 02:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wollstonecraft's views on abortion

Considering the modern feminist concern with the abortion issue, does anyone else agree with me that the following quote from A Vindication of the Rights of Women should be included somewhere in the article, or that the views it implies deserve a mention?

"Women becoming, consequently weaker, in mind and body, than they ought to be, were one of the grand ends of their being taken

into the account, that of bearing and nursing children, have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection, that ennobles instinct, either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity."[1] MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a modern feminist concern, but do we have reason to believe that it was a major issue regarding Wollstonecraft's role in feminist history? ShadowHalo 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've never heard mention of Wollstonecraft's views on abortion before, but I'm better read on Wollstonecraft than feminist history in general. Kaldari 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that, no, Wollstonecraft's views on abortion have not been important in the feminist movement. Most of the Vindication of the Rights of Woman is about much larger philosophical and political issues than abortion (abortion was not a topic of intense concern at the time Wollstonecraft was writing). I am still working on the Rights of Woman page but you can still get a sense of this if you go there now. If you read the "Legacy" section of the Wollstonecraft page itself, you'll discover that it was Wollstonecraft's life story that most invigorated the feminist movement. Awadewit 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There's been a concerted effort on the part of some editors to put in the views of abortion in every major early women's rights figure, even though abortion figured in very little of their careers or influence. I strongly disagree with this ahistoricity -- a retroactive attempt to rewrite historic figures thru a modern political perspective. If done just for the hot-button issues (abortion, capital punishment), it distorts the article leading a reader to think that this was a significant part of their thought (WP:NPOV#Undue weight). If done in any kind of consistent fashion, we would survey a historic figure for all hints we could glean as to their positions or likely positions on modern issues--war, imperialism, capitalism, and so on. The main point is that the debates of today are simply not translatable to the past -- the person in question grew up in a very different society, with different technologies, and social realities, and access to philosophical ideas. On abortion, modern abortion and indeed modern reproductive rights debates simply are not translatable to the past -- a woman might have been less in support of abortion than she appeared, because birth control is more available; on the other hand, if she had any support for a woman's reproductive rights in the 19th century when it was against the grain, then that might be an indication that she would be more supportive in today's climate. Either way it's an unfruitful line of discourse, akin to comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds. Fun for trivia and what-if speculation but not encyclopedic. --lquilter 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wollstonecraft's abortion views should be included for the fallowing reasons;

1. Some of her feminist thought was based on them, as demonstrated both in "A Vindication of the Rights of a Woman," and "Maria; or the Wrongs of a Woman," which were her two major works, both of her career and in respect to feminism.

In no way is it possible to argue that abortion was a primary or even secondary concern for Wollstonecraft. Wollstonecraft was primarily concerned with the issues of women's education, women's role in society and women's rights (which Wollstonecraft did not define using abortion or even suffrage). Awadewit 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly and she saw abortion, along with sexual exploitation of women to be one of the greatest forms of oppression against women, as showcased in her final work "Maria;Or the wrongs of a woman."

No, the focus of Maria is not abortion. According to Claudia Johnson, one of the most well-respected scholars on Wollstonecraft, Maria was "countering the position that sensible women anaesthetize their feelings, Wollstonecraft asserts women's legitimacy as affective and erotic subjects." (202) She also argues that "Jemima's experience exposes the truths concealed by ideologically loaded assumptions about and practices of female propriety and respectability, showing that prostitutes neither enjoy their work, nor pine for their heartless seducers, but are, like wives, an exploited class, despising the men on whom they are dependent." (205) Johnson does not mention Jemima's abortion. I will go on "As mothers and as daughters, Maria and Jemima share a blighted story, and their bond is based in a kindred warmth which they associate with motherhood. Representing romantic love as warped beyond the possibility of correction, Wrongs of Woman locates the 'humanizing affections' in maternal nurturance instead." (205) Claudia Johnson, "Mary Wollstonecraft's novels," The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft. Ed. Claudia L. Johnson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

According to Gary Kelly and Barbara Taylor, both prominent Wollstonecraft scholars, one of the most important themes of Maria is the "prefiguration" of a feminist solidarity that is represented by the relationship between Jemima and Maria, that is, a solidarity across class boundaries. Barbara Taylor, the Wollstonecraft scholar who has published the most complete book on Wollstonecraft's thought in recent years, has a whole chapter on this theme. Abortion is not highlighted (if mentioned at all in these works). The word "abortion" does not appear in the index of Taylor's book, by the way. Gary Kelly, English Fiction of the Romantic Period. London: Longman (1989), 4 and Barbara Taylor, Mary Wollstonecraft and the Feminist Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, See chapter 9, "Jemima and the beginnings of modern feminism." Awadewit 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

2. I have heard that after "A vindication . . ." was published that England shortly thereafter banned abortion, it is probable that as she something of a celebrity as not only a thinker, but the only female thinker she had influence on this.

Please do not argue "I have heard;" cite your sources so that we understand which scholars' works you are relying on to make this argument. Moreover, even if there were no laws against abortion before 1802 (Lord Ellenborough's Act - see http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/index.htm for a text of the act), which I am not sure about, because abortion could have been covered under other laws (I am not a legal scholar), abortions were not readily available during the eighteenth century and were certainly frowned upon. Wollstonecraft's opposition to abortion (consisting of a single sentence in VRW, I remind you) was not unique. (I might also add, she was not "the only female thinker" in England.) Awadewit 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. Abortion was both legal, and widely available during the first two trimesters until the time of quikening in the third trimester, under commonlaw. As for it being made illegal because of Wollstonecraft I don't have a source, and I wasn't suggesting that be put in the article. Furthermore I have yet to hear of any other major pro-life arguements in opposition to abortion in the 1700's, if you know of any cite them. As for other female thinkers, then cite them too, according to the wiki article she intended to become the "first of a new kind of genius."

I don't need to cite the sources here as you are the one making the claims that you want to add to the article. There were no "pro-life" or "pro-choice" arguments in the eighteenth century, by the way. Please read the article I suggested at the end of my first post that explains the situation of abortion during the eighteenth century. Those terms and that debate arose later. And, yes, Wollstonecraft intended to become the "first of a new kind of genus", by which is meant, as is explained in the article, a published woman writer. A genus is a type of something, a category. Awadewit 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

3. As one of the few female thinkers of the Enlightenment her views should be included.

No. This was not an important issue to Wollstonecraft. To include it here would be to distort Wollstonecraft's views. Awadewit 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of her views is not distortion, just because you can't handle her views doesn't give you the right to censor them.

You do not know what views I hold and I am not censoring anything. I am trying to fairly represent Wollstonecraft's thought as it is explained by the scholarly literature. That is why I made an intensive effort to footnote so much of this article.

4. Her views on marriage are included, abortion is just as relevant, more so in some cases because in "Maria," Wollstonecraft demonstrates how one of the male characters seduced a woman, only to force her to have an abortion to absolve himself on any responsability, like marriage, abortion was another tenent of how women are exploited. Marriage being legalized prostition, and abortion being absolution of responsability. Awadewit 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Abortion may be just as relevant to you, but it was not to Wollstonecraft. The problems with marriage in eighteenth-century Britain were much more important to Wollstonecraft, which is why she discusses the ideal marriage at such length in VRW and why she wrote two novels on the subject. In Maria, Maria's husband does not force her to have an abortion. He locks her up in an insane asylum and takes her child away from her. Jemima's seducer (who is also her employer) tries to get her to take a "potion" that will cause an abortion, but she initially refuses and he then, after much reluctance, agrees to support her and her child. But, after various distressing events, Jemima decides to take the "potion" herself. This scene is complex and nuanced. Wollstonecraft is commenting on the precarious place of female servants in British society and the power that rich men had over them. I refer you and anyone else reading this thread to "Chapter Five" of Maria. One also has to keep in mind that Maria is an unfinished manuscript. Awadewit 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That first sentence is a purely subjective statement for which there is no basis. Furthermore I never stated it was Maria, you dunce. Of course it was Jemima, and in it Jemima was displaying how she was being exploited first through seduction then abortion, not all abortions are surgical you know. Furthermore Maria being un-finished has nothing to do with it. I don't think it was anomaly that Wollstonecraft included abortion in Maria, after having discussed in a Vindication.

Again, please do not insult other editors who are engaging in a good faith debate with you. Please refer to my above quotations regarding scholars' explanation of the novel. The abortion is just not a significant scene. Awadewit 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Mary Wollstonecrafts writings had a profound influence on many feminists in the 1800's, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, both of whom were pro-life.

Just because Stanton and Anthony were pro-life does not mean that they were pro-life because of Wollstonecraft's single sentence. Those women read other things that influenced them as well; they also had independent thoughts. The causation is not as simple as you imply. Awadewit 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said they were pro-life because of Wollstonecraft, again you are twisting my words and inserting subjective statements. However Wollstonecraft certainly had an impact on them, and many other women.

You implied it. Wollstonecraft's reputation was in tatters after Godwin's Memoirs, as you will read in the article and the Vindication of the Rights of Woman was not widely available until the end of the nineteenth century. It is very difficult to know Wollstonecraft's impact on other feminists. As Cora Kaplan states, it is more Wollstonecraft's life story that inspired feminists. See bibliography on the Wollstonecraft page for the citation information. Awadewit 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

6. Mary Wollstonecrafts stance has had a profound influence on pro-life feminists in the present day, the same as Simone De Beavoir had a major impact on pro-choice feminism, and Wollstonecraft's anaylsis is a key component of pro-life feminist thought.

Please provide evidence that Wollstonecraft's VRW affects pro-life feminists today. Awadewit 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Feminists for Life of America homepage show case her quotes, and have dedicated a Herstory biography too her.

The "Feminists for Life" website is not a peer-reviewed, scholarly publication. Furthermore, the page quotation page is quite revealing. Someone or group of someones on wikipedia, I do not if it is you, has made a concerted effort to insert all of these quotations into the pages of their subjects. They do not all even relate to abortion. Ideologically-driven websites are not reliable sources. I must ask you to quote scholarly sources to support your position. I am quoting the major scholarly works on Wollstonecraft. Awadewit 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

7.It may not deserve its own section, but it should definately be there.

Since Wollstonecraft does not highlight this issue in her writings, it does not deserve mention in an encyclopedia article which aims to summarize the main points of her thought. (Wollstonecraft uses abortion to highlight other problem issues within society.)I might just add that the quotation from above focuses on "the first duty of a mother" rather than abortion. I believe that you are reading this sentence out of context. I direct you also to Christine Cooper's "Reading the Politics of Abortion: Mary Wollstonecraft Revisited" which does a nice job of explaining abortion in its eighteenth-century context and how Wollstonecraft used it as a device to highlight larger social issues. Eighteenth Century Fiction 16.4 (2004): 735-782. Awadewit 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That is crap. First of all Wollstonecraft included it in her two major works, she also included the subject of sexual exploitation something that I see briefely made it into the article. Furthermore abortion politics then are no differant than today and I am sick of pro-choice whiners who can't handle history trying to censor and re-write it so it agrees with them.

And again, I never said it deserves its own section, I don't know who put that in, but it does deserve mention.

Again, I would urge you to cease the irrelevant name-calling; you do not know my stand on abortion. I would also urge you to read the article I cited which will demonstrate that abortion politics was indeed very different in the eighteenth century. I did not say that you said it deserves its own section. Please read my posts carefully. I said, and I am quoting my post from above: "Since Wollstonecraft does not highlight this issue in her writings, it does not deserve mention in an encyclopedia article which aims to summarize the main points of her thought." Awadewit 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please sign your posts using four tildas (~ ~ ~ ~). Thank you. Awadewit 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not engaging in irrelevant name calling, I am stating facts, although you are right I don't know your stance on abortion, but on the other hand you don't know mine and I take offense at you suggesting that you say I only support inclusion of this information because of what you imagine my stance to be.

Furthermore again it was not differant, so far every arguement I have heard that it was simply because they believed it to be medically dangerous is based solely on the arguements of one or two people.

This argument seems to be about whether Wollstonecraft's views on abortion are significant. But really, since Wikipedia is not a place for original research, you should be arguing about how much importance scholars have attributed to her views, not about her own writings. The contributor in favour of inclusion should begin by presenting evidence that her Wollstonecraft's views on abortion have been the subject of scholarly writing, and probably more than just in passing, since the total length of everything ever published about Wollstonecraft is a lot longer than this article can be. Joeldl 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First off is this an encyclopedia or is this a scholars review page? If that later, then I am wrong to even come here for information on these people. I am not by the way using original research, both works of hers (which I thought would be significant to any article about her) are available online, just google it.

Secondly many pro-life feminists, as demonstrated on Feminists for Life's website (I am not a member to my knowledge although I am on their mailing list) consider her views on abortion significant, and consider that like other forms of sexual exploitation was a means to exploit women. You can obtain the info from an article entitled The American Feminist.

Joeldl, I have followed your advice in responding to the previous contributor. Awadewit 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I made it sound like I was saying you hadn't. I just meant that the discussion had strayed from the issue of the amount of academic interest in the subject, regardless of who caused it to. Joeldl 14:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's fine. You were right to bring it back to the sources. I have read quite I bit on Wollstonecraft, certainly all of the major works on her thought, and nowhere did I see extensive discussions of her views on abortion, therefore I feel that I have fairly represented her thought on this page. Awadewit 15:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I two have read a bit about Mary Wollstonecraft, and again I never said that it should be major, but a brief inclusion of her views should be present. It doesn't deserve its own section, or even a major discussion, but it should be included.

I would like to point out that the user 216.201.33.10 who has been posting the comments regarding Wollstonecraft and abortion has only been posting comments to wikipedia that reflect a strong right-wing agenda (I looked at every single one of his/her contributions). S/he has continually been accusing other editors on other pages of being "whiny" liberals, s\he has deleted sources that s\he feels are liberal and has posted POV banners without providing helpful commentary on the pages. As evidenced by the discussion on Talk:Feminists for Life, this user also does not understand the proper use of sources. Awadewit 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this statement offensive. First off pro-life statements are not "Right Wing" there are many pro-life people that are non-christian, non-right wing, non-conservative, and non-republican. Secondly again you are assuming you know my views and are attempting to use what you percieve to smear me.

That second part was directly offensive, I told an editor who wanted to re-work and re-write the ENTIRE Feminists for Life page that I thought she was whining because when I asked her to provide solid reasons, such as provide an example of bias or show me that a source was untrue, the refused, they simply went on and on without providing any specifics or concrete reasons.

Furthermore I did not call them a "Whiny liberal" I said that unless they were going to provide concrete claims that could be verified, they shouldn't whine. I have never accused anyone on any page with being a whiney liberal, or being liberal, ect . . . YOU MAY BE MISTAKING ME.

As for souces on the feminists for life page there is nothing wrong with using their official website as a source, unless it can be proven that they are telling lies or making false claims.

I believe that Awadewit has made a convincing argument against including discussion of abortion views in the article. I have also read a significant amount on Wollstonecraft myself (although I'm sure not as much as Awadewit), and I have never even seen mention of Wollstonecraft's views on abortion. It was certainly not central to her writing or philosophy. Given the facts presented (and the apparent political agenda of some of the editors) I would like to suggest that we put the issue to rest and move on to more interesting topics. Kaldari 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Again I take offense to this. I am suggesting this because it seems to me that whenever anyone takes a pro-life stance and is famous like this, immediately people try to censor it. Furthermore I do not feel her arguement is compelling.

I second that. Sander123 08:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

References and Further Reading

Now that the Bibliography section has been renamed "Sources", it is somewhat misleading, as not all of the works listed there were used as references for this article. During the featured article review it was suggested that we split this section into "References" and "Further reading" so that it was apparent which were actually used in making the article and which ones were merely suggested reading. I thought this was a good suggestion and implemented it, but it was later changed back into one list. How would people feel about breaking it back into 2 lists to remove the confusion? (And perhaps removing the unnecessary "References" subheader under Notes.) Kaldari 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the two lists are confusing. Not everyone is going to understand that the "References" are the sources cited in the article. Moreover, although I cited only the texts in the notes, I did read the other texts and they certainly shaped my thinking in writing the page, so they influenced the writing of the article as well. Also, I thought a single bibliography would be easier for someone to use who came to the page looking for sources on Wollstonecraft. Awadewit 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I wasn't aware that you had actually read all of those! :) Kaldari 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

British vs. English writer

Well, here we go again. Various people keep changing the lead from "British writer" to "English writer." Here, though, I think the argument is more clear cut. The most prominent scholar on Wollstonecraft, Barbara Taylor, in her book Mary Wollstonecraft and the Feminist Imagination refers to her as a British writer. I could cite more scholars who refer to her as a British writer, but I will begin with that. WP:RS states that peer-reviewed, scholarly sources should be used. I am following their lead. Awadewit 12:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add references into the page that direct the reader to information about Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, who is Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter. Arguing that Shelley is an English writer does not prove that Wollstonecraft was. Also, scholarly works, such as the one I quote above, trump encyclopedia articles as references. Awadewit 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every essay in The Cambridge Companion to Wollstonecraft, which represents the most accepted scholarship on Wollstonecraft, also refers to Wollstonecraft as a British writer. Awadewit 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Steven Kreis's biography of Wollstonecraft refers to her as "Anglo-Irish", BTW. Kaldari 18:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

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