Talk:Kate Chopin/Archives/2015

Possible Plagiarism?
Either someone plagiarized most of the information from this website http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Aberdonia4407/kate-chopin-childhood.html or they plagiarized wikipedia? Jman14141414 00:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Who suggested her to write?
I noticed here that it says she was having a nervous breakdown and that her docter suggested to her that she write. Yet, the thing is, I just had a professor at my school do a sabbatical on Chopin, and she clams that it was a friend Kate wrote to while she lived in New Orleans who suggested to her that she write, not because of a nervous breakdown, but because she was good at it.

This article, sadly, has been vandalized. I would repair, but I don't have the proper information.(75.177.56.241 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

There is a comment in the intro to the article that "in time, feminist critics would determine that her stories addressed the concerns of all women in all places at all times" or something along those lines. First of all, there are no sources listed for this assertion (although you could possibly reference any number of feminist criticism essays) but also, this should probably be corrected to be more specific. Second wave feminist critics may have written such a thing, but that type of feminism came under heavy criticism itself by third wave feminism and non-white feminists in particular, who argue that race/geography/etc etc also plays an important role and that you cannot simply say that there is a social category called "women" which is uniform the world over and thus faces the same social problems... anyway I do not know how to edit pages well but somebody should surely make this correction.

Vandalism?
"Their home at 243 Highway 495 (built by Alexis Cloutier in the early part of the century) was a national historic landmark and the home of the Bayou Folk Museum. On October 1, 450000000000000, the house was destroyed by monster, with little left but the fridge."

This was seen on 11/18/2008 at 11:50 EST.

I'd love to help correct this but sadly I do not have the correct information, nor do I have the time this second to look up the proper information. Any help?

Tiger902 (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag and vandalism.
This article appears to be a target for substantial vandalism, and may need to be protected... at a guess, I think this may be a person about whom research is being required by a large number of ... mmm... less-than-fully-matured individuals, and they are lashing out. If I can find the time, I will go backward through the individual edits and clean them, but a knowledgeable and interested person could probably do this much faster, and make the article better... where at best I can take out the unsourced vandalism. It might profit from a short-term partial protection tag. sinneed (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tone
The tone of this article is in places a little bit class paperish (rather than encyclopedic). The section which begins "There are valuable points of view outside the feminist ..." seems to be unrelated to the beginning of the paragraph of which it is part, and also is uncited. I largely agree with what it says, there are a few critics (Harold Bloom for example) who disagree with reading Chopin as a feminist, so that POV should be included but perhaps it could be put a little better, I'll try to improve that aspect at some point. Also there is inconsistency in the way Chopin is referred to in the article, sometimes as 'Chopin' more often as 'Kate', the former is standard and better suited to the formal nature of an encyclopedia. Grcaldwell (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

kate chopin is boring
this critique should be mentioned i think. i had to study her short stories and no one in class likes her. overrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup Project
I will be working on this site for a final project for a class. I plan to fix the needed citations in her biography that are absent, along with adding links to her works that are missing as well. Aside from the additions, I will be working on making the article sound more scholarly by adjusting some of the heading titles and content.

Bhunt5 (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)