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

the woman question
the woman question article does not cover the meaning mentioned in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman --Melaen 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

mary wollstonecraft article
The section about this book in the article Mary Wollstonecraft is much more informative.KSchutte 22:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This comment has, I believe, been negated by my improvements to the VRW page. Awadewit 11:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination
As the near sole author of this page, I do not believe that it is of GA quality. In my comments on the B-ranking that I gave it I mentioned some of the improvements that still need to be made. They still stand in my opinion and I am slowly addressing them. Give me time! (If I were reviewing this for GA, I would say that it should fail on comprehensiveness - it needs sections on "Republicanism" and "Reception.") Thanks. Awadewit 06:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh whoops. There doesn't seem to be an un-nominating procedure for GAC? -Malkinann 06:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I briefly looked for one but didn't see one. I am unfamiliar with GA, though. Awadewit 07:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - the worst it can do is fail, right? -Malkinann 07:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fine. Perhaps I'll receive some constructive criticism. Awadewit 07:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the page is pretty much ready now. I have added the mising sections and done a brief copyedit run-through. Hopefully I will have time for one more run-through. Awadewit 06:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've revised the page even more now, so I hope its even better. Awadewit 21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've revised yet more. Awadewit 10:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

French Revolution
Something of a mischaracterisation as to how it was received in England. Although lauded by a few thinkers, these were very much in the minority, and in general, it received about as much support as the Bolshevik later would. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I try to make clear, at the beginning of the French Revolution, the majority of the English supported the "revolutionaries." It was not until 1792-3 that their support really began to wane. You might read Marilyn Butler's excellent introduction to her selection of pamphlets from the "Revolution Controvery." It begins "As a public issue, the 'Revolution debate' lasted for about six years, from the first English rejoicings at France's new dawn in 1789, to December 1795, when Pitt's government introduced measures to stop the spread of radicalism by the printed and spoken word." (1) This book, Burke, Paine, Godwin, and the Revolution Controversy, is cited in my notes to the article.Awadewit 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

review of current article & suggestions for improvement
Hi - a few comments on the article. I'm mentioning them here rather than making changes, because I'm not confident of the best way to address them.
 * Somewhere near the top, I would add a bit to the description of the work. The substance and historical value are clearly laid out, but the format (long essay) and tone (persuasive advocacy writing, not just philosophical analysis) would be helpful to the reader not familiar with the text.
 * Tried to address.
 * In "Historical context" a sentence explaining Wollstonecraft's points in Vindication of the Rights of Man would be very helpful.
 * Tried to address.
 * In "Historical context" there is a good bit of discussion of Burke, which is of course important to understand the context. However, the reader's experience of that section is that the Burke material seems to be going a little off-topic. This might be remedied by rearranging & fleshing out in some places. For instance, one proposed rearrangement might be:


 * A Vindication of the Rights of Woman was written against the tumultuous background of the French Revolution, AND THE DEBATES SPAWNED BY THE REVOLUTION.
 * The debate in Britain, now referred to as the "Revolution Controversy", was expressed through a lively and sometimes vicious pamphlet war.
 * Writers addressed topics ranging from representative government to human rights to the separation of church and state.
 * Wollstonecraft's first foray into the controversy was her work, "A Vindication of the Rights of Men."
 * In it, she laid out her responses to Edmund Burke's 1790 "Reflections on the Revolution in France."
 * Burke's pamphlet, which triggered the Revolution Controversy, was a rejoinder to many British writers and thinkers who welcomed the French Revolution, at least in its early stages.
 * While these thinkers saw reflections of Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688 in the French Revolution, Burke argued that it was the violent overthrow of a legitimate government.
 * Wollstonecraft's response, issued only six weeks after Burke's essay, argued that [more details on vindication of rights of men].
 * Another sentence detailing rights of men & how it responded to burke's points.
 * new paragraph
 * other writers extended the debate, building on and responding to the works by wollstonecraft, burke, and others.
 * charles-maurice de talleyrand-périgord's rapport sur l'instruction publique (1791) argued that the french assembly's declaration of the rights of man applied to women as well as to men.
 * French feminist Olympe de Gouge also published in 1791 (which came first? talleyrand or gouge?) the Rights of Woman argued that --.
 * Wollstonecraft, in drafting Vindication, extended her arguments from Rights of Men, as well as specifically responding to Talleyrand-Perigord and Olympe de Gouge.
 * Tried to address.


 * Rational education - This needs to be defined at the top of the Rational Education section, with an explanation of what Wollstonecraft and others conceived of as "rational education".
 * Tried to address.
 * Feminism - Right now this section is largely oriented towards Wollstonecraft, and not the text. Suggest: This section could benefit from a first paragraph that clearly relates the discussion of feminism to the discussion of Vindication, and discusses in this order (1) Vindication on feminism/women; (2) Vindication's adoption by feminist movement; and (3) critical distinctions between Vindication/ Wollstonecraft and feminism, per se.  For instance, the first paragraph should explain that while Vindication is a key text in feminist history and advocacy for the rights of women, Wollstonecraft's argument in Vindication is limited to education, premised on equality in the eyes of God.  Then more discussion about the education (referring to previous section) and particularly about her view of moral equality and what she was arguing for.  Then (2), why the text was adopted by feminist movement, and what they used it for, and how it fed early adoptions of Wollstonecraft as feminist foremother; and then (3) the latest revisionist history that points out how Wollstonecraft does not fit easily within modern definition of feminism, and appeared to concede masculine superiority to some extent. ... this can transition into the republican material that is in the Claudia Johnson paragraph; some of that material I think properly belongs in the next section.
 * Addressed in my own way. As I understand it, VRW was not a key text for the feminist movement.
 * Republicanism - This needs to be beefed up a little bit, by inclusion of some of the Claudia Johnson material. Also though I think the thread of morality that is hit on in feminism can be brought out more here, and may serve as a unifying theme that ties these sections together.
 * Tried to address.
 * Sensibility - I wonder if sensibility really belongs after rational education, and before feminism. As I recall, the sensibility was really her contrast to rationality; rationality was the cure for over-sensibility.  That subtle criticism of women also helps queue of the discussion of feminism, by reflecting in the larger flow (education ... sensibility) the smaller flow within the feminism section (a limited argument for education ... MW's criticisms of women).  That would also let class follow  Republicanism, which seems to be a more natural flow for that discussion.
 * I understand your point, but I think that many readers will come to the page wondering about MW's feminism. That is one reason I have featured it so prominently. I have moved "Sensibility" up, though. It does flow better from "Feminism" to "Republicanism," I think. Awadewit 00:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rhetoric and style - I would tie this to MW's other writings, as in, "As was common with MW's other writings, and 18th c lit as a whole, W employed vivid analogies to make her points. For instance, to describe the condition of women within society, she compared them to slaves. Later, she argued that they were capricious tyrants.  They can become either ... (And then a sentence that explains how this rhetorical trick works -- by analogizing to two very different and seemingly incompatible extremes, MW appeals to people in different ways, and also effectively situates her own position as a moderate one -- between the extremes.) ... Then new paragraph about other examples; soldiers, rich, infantilization.
 * I think this is one of the few points where I might quibble with you. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable saying that eighteenth-century writing uses analogies, as if somehow that's distinctive to eighteenth-century writing alone. Also, she was not claiming a moderate position between the slave and tyrant, as I understand it. She was trying to move the discussion to an entirely different set of terms - she did not want to use that spectrum and all that it implied. Awadewit 08:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, not a good idea to suggest analogies are distinctively 18c, or to muddy things up with moderation. --lquilter 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rhetoric and style - the last paragraph I think belongs best in the feminist section.
 * Done.
 * Reception - I wouldn't start out with the contradiction. Rather, I would lead with something like, the work was received positively at the time and influenced/contributed significantly to debates. Then explain how it was actually received -- hays & robinson; and more detail on how they used the work, not just "alluded to"; the hannah more stuff is great. move the barbauld material to this paragraph. Then in the second paragraph describe how Vindication's *reputation* changed over time, such that now people sometimes think its initial reception was hostile. the transition came after publication of godwin's memoirs, which revealed the (at the time) unorthodox lifestyle. wollstonecraft was excoriated for this, and writers distanced themselves from her -- e.g., edgeworth.  the conflation of wollstonecraft's life and ideas led to a continuing disavowal of MW's life and work, until she was "rehabilitated" by the feminist movement.
 * Tried to address.
 * revisions to the text - i would actually build this up a bit. and i would include the "bolstering the feminist claims" in the feminist section, discussing wollstonecraft's views.  point out that her views shifted over time, or she felt more comfortable expressing them; whatever the truth, she was more forceful in 2d ed.
 * Incorporated into another section. Awadewit 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. --lquilter 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is very helpful. VRW is all over the place, so often when one writes about it, one's writing is also all over the place. Awadewit 20:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a great job as it stands. Since it looks like you're still working a substantial overhaul, I didn't want to jump in with any edits yet. But I'll keep an on it now that you've called it to my attention, and will help out with a copy-edit when you want. --lquilter 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am slowly working on the changes. Thanks! Awadewit 08:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * lquilter, if you want, you can look over the article now. I've made all of the substantial changes that I was planning on making and fixed up some of the language. Perhaps we can work on the copyediting together. Awadewit 09:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey - I've been dealing with some non-WP business. I'm copy-editing now and will make a few comments here too.
 * At one point I changed "national education" to "rational education"; I assumed it was a typo but didn't verify, so just flagging it here for Awadewit who (I suspect) has the copy close at hand.  -- ("When in 1791 ..." paragraph)
 * It is actually "national." Talleyrand was proposing a national system of education and Wollstonecraft was responding. Awadewit 22:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the "spaniels" and "toys" quote goes better with the "gilt cage" quote, but I was hesitant to move it becuase I'm not as familiar with the structure of MW's argument.
 * Well, these arguments are all interrelated for Wollstonecraft. It's hard to say that a quotation illustrates just one point.
 * Under "Class" it seems like it would be helpful to have an example where it says "she also attacks the wealthy using the same language"...
 * One reason I did not include an example for that statement is that I thought the article was already long and this one seemed less important, but I will add one if you think it needs it.
 * More later.
 * --lquilter 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick question: Why did you replace my code for the m-dash with an actual dash? Is there something I should know? Awadewit 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail: --Rmky87 08:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * a Pass/Fail: --Rmky87 08:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

C quotes
There is no requirement, as far as I know, that blockquotes be in the silly-looking "c quotes". I see no reason to add them. Awadewit | talk  19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)