Talk:Three Guineas

Untitled
It was absurd that Wikipedia didn't have an article on Three Guineas! A redirect!?! That's ridiculous! Well, I've made a start on the article. I'll expand on it in April or so, once I've read it. Mat334 06:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources you can cite to support your assertions? Please review WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  Tom e rtalk  22:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I will not review any of those policies because I am quite familiar with them. I don't mean to sound aggressive or rude, but I think your question is unnecessary and a waste of time. Everything I posted in the article itself is verifiable, has a clear source (the book), takes a neutral point of view, and is not original research. The comment I made on this page is quite clearly an opinion. This is why I made it on the talk page. What do you want me to do? Cite a source for my opinion? Or are Wikipedians banned from expressing occassional opinions on talk pages? If you must know, Three Guineas is, according to the New York Times, one of Woolf's three "major works" of the 1930s . (By the way, Wikipedia also lacks articles on her other two major works of the decade, which is also absurd.) According to Wikipedia's article on Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas is one of "her best-known nonfiction works", and Woolf is "is considered to be one of the foremost modernist literary figures of the twentieth century". Thus, it is "absurd" that Wikipedia didn't have an article on it (and "ridiculous" that it only had a redirect). But really, I shouldn't have to cite the New York Times to make it clear that Wikipedia should have an article on Three Guineas. It is obvious to anyone who takes an interest in philosophy or feminism. Just as any calculus student knows that the directional derivative needs its own article, any student of philosophy or feminism knows that Three Guineas needs its own article. And I'm not even any of those types of student. Mat334 19:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite your claim to not mean to sound rude or aggressive, you sound both. Wikipedians are not prohibited from expressing opinions on talk pages at all, so long as they don't let that expression degenerate into personal attacks.  That said, Wikipedians are prohibited from engaging in original research, expressing opinions, or using non-noteworthy sources when writing articles.  Citing the book itself as a source is certainly permissible, but only when actually quoting the book.  I don't particularly care what kind of student you are, if you want to write an article on WP about this book, you have to abide by WP policies.  If "anyone who takes an interest in philosophy or feminism" knows that "Wikipedia should have an article on Three Guineas", since that includes a great many people, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty citing such people.  That said, however, this is no place (nor is the article) for you to write a book report or even a critical review.  If you want to do that, fine, get your review published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then your personal views (read "original research"), will become permissible content for the article.  Even then, however, as the author, it would be strongly frowned-upon for you to add such content to the article.  If you're successful, tho, let me know, I'll be more than happy to read the review and to include relevant observations in the article...  It sounds like it'd make a fascinating read.  Cheers, Tom e rtalk  07:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not make any personal attack on anyone. I have not commented on anyone - only on content. So don't accuse me of making personal attacks. Mat334 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of anything, so please refrain from accusing me of accusing you of making personal attacks. Tom e rtalk 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not engaged in any original research, nor did I express any opinion in the article. So don't accuse me of violating Wikipedia policies. Mat334 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite your claimed familiarity with WP:NOR, I interpreted your statement "I'll expand on it in April or so, once I've read it.", to be an indication that you were planning to do a review of the book as an article. If my interpretation was incorrect, so be it.  That said, I did not accuse you of engaging in original research, nor of violating any other wikipedia policy, although some of your statements are beginning to border on incivility...  Tom e rtalk  00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have cited a notable source for my initial comments on this talk page. So, yes, I had no difficulty citing a notable source. Mat334 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. All I was saying from the outset is that WP articles need citable sources other than the articles' authors themselves.  (Back to what I said earler about my interpretation of your initial statement on this talk page...) Tom e rtalk  00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not write a book review or even a critical review, nor have I ever attempted to do so on any website. And, again, I stress that I have not expressed any original views in the article. Further, I have no interest in writing anything for any sort of journal, nor would I cite any of my own research in Wikipedia in any case. Mat334 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your personal aspirations are hardly germane to this article's talk page... Tom e rtalk 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't expect anyone to care about what sort of student I may or may not be, which is precisely why I did not write about who I am or what I may be. Mat334 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Great. Tom e rtalk  00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was offended by your original response because it said that I was making unfounded assertions. I made no such assertions in the article. I only expressed an opinion on this talk page. For your entertainment, I even backed up my comment with a notable source (or two, if you consider Wikipedia to be notable). Now, however, you have made several allegations that are just plain false. I am very offended, and this is why I am continuing to use a severe tone. Mat334 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not only did my original response not assert that you were making unfounded assertions (although it did ask for citations for anything that gets included in the article: WP:CITE doesn't apply to talk pages...)  I clearly understood that you were expressing an opinion on the talk page, as indicated by my statement "Wikipedians are not prohibited from expressing opinions on talk pages at all...", although you appear to have glossed over that part of my statement in your search for perceived slights.  I have not made any allegations, other than that you sounded rude and aggressive despite your having specifically said that you didn't mean to before you said anything else.  It's not my fault you went through what I wrote looking for reasons to feign offense, nor am I responsible for how you choose to express any offense you've taken, but your "continuing to use a severe tone" as though that's appropriate is further evidence of incivility, and now it appears you're saying you're intending to be incivil.  Tom e rtalk  00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Tomer or TShilo12, whichever it is... I have never come across anyone on Wikipedia who is quite as annoying as you are. It is incredibly discouraging (for me at least) when someone goes around saying 'go look up this or that policy', or implying that I'm making unfounded assertions, or implying that I'm making personal attacks or doing original research. People like you just make Wikipedia a bad experience. I just wanted to contribute some perfectly acceptable information, but by implying that I've made unfounded assertions or saying I should review all these policies, you make my efforts a complete pain. I don't want to have anything further to do with this article. If my contributions aren't acceptable to you, why don't you edit them? All I see that you've done to the article is rephrase some of my sentences. In the future, I'll do my best to avoid you. That's all. Mat334 05:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that, for whatever reason, you insist that I'm accusing you of things I'm not. Tom e rtalk  05:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello there. I came to this article last week and I found it didn't have enough info. for my purposes, so I've gone elsewhere on the net and pulled together some stuff and written up a page with: a synopsis, key quotes, secondary literature bibliography and some 'three guineas trivia'. You can find it here: http://www.feminish.net/2006/07/29/virginia-woolf-three-guineas-synopsis-quotes-bibliography/ . Do you think it's a good idea to link to it at the bottom of the article, as a link? Or if anyone wants they can chop it up and feed it in to the main body of this article, if that is appropriate and doesn't violate objectivity rules etc. I think the trivia stuff is fun, and the links to digital copies of the text are important, as is the secondary bibliography. I'm not experienced at writing Wikipedia stuff, so I'm still figuring out the rules/protocol.... Thanks, Amarind.

Citation and clarification needed
From the article: (Actually, the fund was a metaphor for family private funds to send the "boys of the family" to college and not the women. Woolf questioned this practice, but it was never about government supported schooling for women, but for all people) This is not clear to me at all. I don't understand it. Is this someone's poorly written opinion stuck in here, or is there some citation someone could provide? Is the fund real or just a metaphor? Is this analysis or interpretation? Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)