Talk:Christina Crosby

Reports of death
Wikipedia needs a reasonably reliable source for the death of a person to appear in their article, even if there is community discussion on the topic; a formal announcement by the subject's university (even if via Twitter) is probably sufficient, but does need to be provided. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of source section
I repeated the source because I was referring to the paperback edition (which is previewed in Google Books) of the following year, and not the original hardback publication, which is probably what should go in the selected works. They have different ISBNs, and possibly different page nos. I see no reason at all why they can't be repeated; one is a list of the subject's achievements in book form, the other our sources for writing this article about the subject. I can't get the hang of editing the sfn style sources at all, so will leave it be for now. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I didn't see that. I initially consolidated because sfn gets confused when there are two books with the same author and year, and so I wanted to cite to only one edition. Unlikely that the pages would change from one year to the next, but you never know. I may redo the cites with sfn at some point later (different publication year means CS1 won't get confused). For now I've reverted. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. Always necessary to cite the version that you're looking at -- who knows what changes were made in between. More generally altering people's citation styles shouldn't be done without prior discussion (which is why I find myself struggling with cite book/journal, when I always use the citation template in my originated articles). Though I don't know who gets to decide in this case, as the creator appears retired. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the cites were a mix between CS1 and an individual style, I think it's fair to use CS1 (especially since that avoids creating bare URLs, which is really the only reason besides consistency to prefer one style to another). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Feminist scholar
I have to go offline but I do want to insist on a cite for the claim that she's a feminist scholar if it is to stay that way. The reason is that "feminist scholar" is ambiguous. It could mean scholar of feminism, or it could mean a scholar who is a feminist. Either is of course plausible here. I have no problem including the claim that she is a prof of feminist, gender, and sexuality studies; that's clear enough. But "feminist scholar" is an ambiguous, unclear phrase that arguably describes the person, not her scholarship, and that requires a direct cite IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean; didn't add this (actually looks to have been added by the IP who added the death details), but I've added a source for self-identifying as a feminist. The reviews of The Ends of History will probably cover feminist scholar, but this is far from my field so I'm progressing glacially slowly on that topic. for an opinion, too. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup (I heard my name in my sleep, grin)—likewise slow on those sources but one I have been reading remarks on her giving a “feminist” reading of Derrida rather than Deconstructionist. I suppose that makes her a feminist...? Actually now I’m uncertain whether that’s scholar of feminism or scholar who is feminist or both. Full quote (from the Wolfreys review) reads:
 * “There are frequent signs throughout Crosby’s writing of her faithful, though not slavish, “feminist” interpretation of Derridean thought (as opposed to what is understood by the term “Deconstruction-ism” as a variant of such thought).”
 * ... oh lucky me, I see the memoir answered this intractable question! Thank you both for all your work. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I've been trying to get my head around the Hobart review, which is a bit impenetrable, but opens with a preamble on American academic feminism, then says Crosby "addresses a number of these issues" but doesn't quite explicitly call Crosby a feminist scholar. The bits of the memoir I can read all seem just to say scholar and feminist separately. How about "American scholar, author and feminist"? Espresso Addict (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How about just is an American scholar of English literature and feminist, gender, and sexuality studies? That avoids thorny, contentious statements about her scholarly positions in the lede but still gives the reader a good sense of her scholarship. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Feminism is one of the issues in her scholarship so I think it’s definitely true. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh it gets long but disability studies should probably be in there... Hrm. What about: ... is an American writer and academic. She is a professor of English and feminist, gender, and sexuality studies at Wesleyan University, specializing in 19th-century British literature as well as disability studies. And then the books. Too reductive? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've turned it round a bit, without changing the wording much. See what you think. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So much better—thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)