User talk:Breannapalmer/sandbox

'''Thanks for visiting my Sandbox Talk Page! :) I a planning on editing the Nellie McClung page with edits and additions found on User Page Tab. I am working on this material in my sandbox as copied from the original wiki article on Nellie McClung as well at the bottom of page, the direct copy/paste from Early Canadian Writers Database entry. DRAFT 2:''' The main History of feminism page only contains a photograph of Nellie McClung and a citation from the National Archives of Canada. There is no link to her Wikipedia page and I propose that there be one added. I am not certain if this should be entered into the Talk page of the main History of feminism Page but I have also included the following as a direct copy/paste from the main page of where that might be edited and worked with firstly in my sandbox:
 * NB. there is still direct copy/paste from sources -

Peer Review #2
Hi Breanna! I like how detailed and extensive your research has been for this article. I think that it would also be beneficial to examine how Nellie's feminism benefited certain women while negatively impacting others. Perhaps expand upon how her involvement with eugenics would have been received by Indigenous feminist scholars or other types of feminists today; maybe this info could go into the legacy section. How is maternal feminism used to uphold current white supremacist values/policies/structures? Additionally, how will you write your information into the article? How exactly do you plan to incorporate your sources when your gathered information is in prose? I know this seems like so many questions, but I am just eager for the final result because McClung's feminism is so exciting and polarizing. Keep up the good work! Leslyn S (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Peer Review Feedback!
I have incorporated this into my sandbox to develop. Breannapalmer (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback. Note: This article has received four peer reviews.
I will be sending a general statement that applies to all or virtually all of the first drafts and peer reviews through email to every member of the class, along with the grades for the peer reviews. On these "talk" pages I will only be posting my own feedback on the first drafts.

The McClung article is shockingly short. For instance, there is also not a word in the current article about her anti-war activism, which was central to her public life. The centrality of religion to her feminism is also dramatically lacking at the moment. One excellent piece of scholarship to use for that would be Warne, R. R., and Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion. 2006. Literature As Pulpit : The Christian Social Activism of Nellie L. McClung. Dissertations SR. [Waterloo, Ontario]: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=1433259&site=eds-live&scope=site. Even though the article is short, already a large section of it features a discussion of the negative/harmful/eugenicist side of Mcclung. In fact, the article is already skewed quite negative, and the peer reviews encourage doubling down on the negative aspects, or (in the case of one really extensive peer review) always making sure to have both negative and positive aspects present for “balance.” I would say this: if we do not also clarify the ways in which McClung is a positive figure (according to contemporary judgments) then we will not do a thing towards complicating the feminist legacy. We will just increase the extent to which McClung and women like her are caricatures who are dismissed… Simply increasing the space devoted to eugenics or maternal feminism or white supremacy per se would not necessarily be that useful, but the more sophisticated point made by Dixon might well be worth pursuing, that is, including a section about how the (in our current view) reprehensible aspects of her thought have spurred debates among (historians of) feminism about the negative aspects of the movement as a whole and about whether or not McClung should be considered a feminist. That per se could be a terrific focal point for the addition to the legacy section; the question only is “on what scholarship can you rely?” Perhaps look at: Sarah Carter -- A legacy of ambivalence : responses to Nellie McClung in Perry, Adele, Veronica Jane Strong-Boag, and Mona Gleason. 2002. Rethinking Canada : The Promise of Women’s History. Oxford University Press. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat03710a&AN=alb.2591365&site=eds-live&scope=site. Just FYI Sarah Carter is here at the U of A in History and Classics and she would be able to point you towards more recent work on the subject.FeliceLifshitz (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)FeliceLifshitz

[PEER REVIEW] Hi Breanna, this is Talia!
[PEER REVIEW] Hi Breanna, this is Talia! I am peer-reviewing your article, but I am not sure how this space will allow us to chat so if you have any questions about my feedback please ask me in class! First of all, I liked where you are going with your bullet points and what you are planning to write, I know a lot of it is bullet points (which is challenging for peer editing) but I think that it was some good brainstorming. Personally, I think that a lot has been written about Nellie McClung because of how famous she is, but I think it would be really really interesting to write about how she affected feminist thought her actions that had a negative impact (such as eugenics) and are anti-feminist, and how that has impacted feminist thought. For example, I think it would be interesting to learn about how she has lead to feminists being able to think about feminist and recognize the good they did, while also understanding the negative impacts that they had and how we can be critical of these actions. I think it would also be interesting to learn more about the conversations that feminists have had about whether or not she should even be considered feminist, as I think this is something I have heard lots about but not read a lot about and Wikipedia might be the first people learn about her and about this debate. Finally, I think it's important to make sure that you are not just repeating information, but are adding something new and interesting! I hope this all made sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaliaMary (talk • contribs) 02:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * moved from test section**

I moved this review into a new section Breannapalmer (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

'''
Update/ To-Do List: ==''' ==

Also unsure how to assign myself as a peer reviewer but have marked my peer reviews on the talk page of user sandboxes. I also have included in draft 2 a link to the main https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism History of Feminism Page and already incorporated the Peer Review feedback received from Peers and Instructor (Librarian Linda Quirk referred to Professor for further feedback). Consulted also with C4W and Librarians in Rutherford for Nellie McClung Section in Library for further research and in preparing writings. Breannapalmer (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

== Article ideas/ Planning == I believe I chose an article on Nellie McClung- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breannapalmer (talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)  DRAFT 1: -Who is missing and why: - Check with Bruce Peel Collection/ Library for Scholarly Sources- Made 2 appointments/viewings (Rescheduled for climate change strike) -To add a link and article: Copy/Paste Sections  LAB Day with Paige: - advance Breannapalmer (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

PEER REVIEWS: - Combahee River Collective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leslyn_S/sandbox - Pauline E. Johnston: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chutcheon/E._Pauline_Johnson/Tjones97_Peer_Review - Merniss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Agarma/sandbox

DRAFT 2 -incorporate peer review/feedback -incorporate main History of Feminism section with link from copy/paste to include information about Nellie McClung as there currently is only a photograph with citation from National Archines -check with C4W to begin writing and organizing sections -work on reference/citation section test, test -office hour/ check with Professor. -reached out to Sarah Carter at Ualberta re: her article "A legacy of ambivalence : responses to Nellie McClung" to balance the positive and negative, also found book at Ualberts Library. Also found Title:Literature As Pulpit : The Christian Social Activism of Nellie L. McClung book at Ualberta Library to add to references section. - received feedback from Sarah Carter and will visit in office hour on Nov 19th at 330pm in Tory, as well sent a note to Cciley Devereux, expert on Nellie McClung to discuss sandbox. - will also add notes from Lecture on Nellie McClung Breannapalmer (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Breannapalmer (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breannapalmer (talk • contribs) Breannapalmer (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

My Own Testing in Sandbox/ Make a Mess Area
talk talk talk talk Breannapalmer (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Wondering how sandbox works and how to choose an article and partner for assignments. Also using through devices and how/ where to access. Just test in the sandbox. Hi 👋 Breannapalmer (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok neat - is there an app for this? Using Desktop Computer Breannapalmer (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok neat - is there an app for this? Using Cellphone/Mobile Breannapalmer (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

hi 👋 nice emoji! :) Breannapalmer (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)   I was working with all of this on my iphone device, now switching to computer, it seems that there are many ways to edit and connect. ––––

code test —— Breannapalmer (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

code test —— Breannapalmer (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

how do I sign with ———— Breannapalmer (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

how do I sign with ———— Breannapalmer (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I talk to other people in either sandbox or eclass forum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breannapalmer (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Test Breannapalmer (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Testing New Sections on my own sandbox- peer review
New Sections for Peer Reviews on Talk Pages of Sandboxes

test test — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breannapalmer (talk • contribs) 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breannapalmer (talk • contribs)

Peer Review: Helen
==Peer Review== Hi Breanna! You’ve clearly put a lot of thought into your first draft! So far, I think the breadth of your research is outstanding, especially regarding her social reform and legacy. I appreciate that you’re probably planning on adding a lot of information including and outside of what I’m about to suggest, but I have some comments on the organization, content, and references in your draft.
 * Moved from User Talk Page to New Section in Talk Sandbox Area

The structure of the original article is organized into four major sections (Early life, Career, Family, and Legacy). I think these sections are too broad to encompass every aspect of McClung’s life. For example, it groups all of McClung’s lifetime achievements into one relatively small section titled “Career”, which is partly organized chronologically and partly organized according to McClung’s participation in different organizations or advocacy for different causes. In your draft, you reorganize the structure of the article by adding “Activism/Feminism” and “Religion” sections, and adding “Education” and “Family Members” as subsections under the “Early Life” section. These ideas are excellent, and I would even go beyond them.

To better organize your draft, you might divide the “Career” section according to each of McClung’s endeavours, like “Political Participation” (involvement in the Liberal Party), “Political Activism” (Women’s Political Equality Group, mock Women’s Parliament), and maybe a “Legal Activism” section where you discuss the effects of her political involvement (like women’s enfranchisement in Manitoba, the Person’s Case, etc). Alternatively, you could organize the career section according to the province in which McClung lived. After discussing her work in Manitoba, you could talk separately about McClung’s work as an author and public speaker as she lived in Edmonton. Next, you could either add your new “Activism” section or “Religion” section.

If you settle on “Religion” next, this is where you might talk about social gospel methodism, her view of women (maybe contrast it to Simone de Beauvoir’s view of women as parasites who deserve to have less social power and Paulette Nardal’s opposite view?). This section could also include McClung’s fight for women’s ordination into the Methodist church. If instead you choose “Activism” to go next, you could divide the section into three subsections: Political activism (political party involvement, push for women’s voting rights, anti-war activism) ; social activism (Eugenics, Temperance movement, maternal feminism); and maybe legal activism (women’s enfranchisement in Manitoba, Labour Movement involvement, push for anti-prostitution legislation, sterilization legislation, etc). In contradiction to her belief in eugenics, McClung was heavily invested in human rights (what a total paradox, right?), so maybe adding a section on her human rights advocacy would balance out the section on eugenics and keep the article neutral in tone. I think your connection to social issues like domestic abuse (and its connection to the Temperance Movement) and issues affecting immigrants and the vulnerable sector is really well-done. You could add this to a section on social reform, or even include it in the “Legacy” section. In my research, I discovered some extra things you might include or expand on. McClung was heavily invested in human rights as well as women’s rights. In her novels (specifically Painted Fires) she talks about recognizably feminist issues, like systematic biases about immigrant women, as well as domestic abuse, slut-shaming, and prostitution. You might research the content of her novels and its significance. Additionally, she advocated for enfranchisement of Japanese people in Canada (a particularly controversial act considering the political climate of the time) and opening Canadian borders to Jewish refugees. You could also link to World War II and the Japanese Internment in Canada (the bombing of Pearl Harbour) to provide some context for her anti-war activism. She also pushed for Dower’s Rights (which still exist in Canada today!), factory safety legislation, and equal pay, and was involved in the Labour Movement.

I also appreciate your proposal to include a “Feminisms” section and include other famous Canadian women. I applaud your link to other Canadian women, like Emily Carr and Lucy maud Montgomery, and expansion on the members of the Famous Five. In addition to Maternal Feminism (and possibly critics who disagree with the idea of McClung as a maternal feminist) you could talk about McClung as a part of the New Woman movement, especially in reference to her public speaking. You might also connect McClung to other individuals or groups in the New Woman Movement, like Seito, E. Pauline Johnson, and Rokheya Shekhawat Hossain. Original research is not allowed, but I personally think McClung practiced intersectional feminism through her advocacy for immigrant women. Although the term “intersectional” didn’t exist during McClung’s time, you might find a published source that connects McClung to intersectionality. As a result, you will have a significant connection between McClung and the larger history of feminism.

Lastly, the references of the original article could be improved, since only five of the nineteen references are journal articles. An easy way to make the article more credible is to use peer-reviewed, published articles, and it is awesome that you include some of these in your draft. I also applaud your use of creative commons to search for images! I am going to follow your lead and apply that to my article as well.

Overall, your first draft seems very well thought out. Everything you’ve included seems relevant and on-topic. My only constructive criticism is that you seem to emphasize her positive endeavours, like advocacy for vulnerable groups and women’s rights. If you focus equally on McClung’s positive endeavours and negative endeavours (like eugenics) and present a variety of viewpoints on each of the mentioned topics, you will preserve the neutrality of your article. I think the most important changes you could make to the original article (some of which you’ve already done) are structure and organization to make the timeline of McClung’s life clearer. Finally, there are some important influences in her life, like the political climate (World War II, Japanese internment, etc) and religious climate, that provide historical context for her work. Additionally, discussing other feminist movements, like Maternal Feminism and the New Woman Movement, would also help situate McClung within the broader narrative of the history of feminist advocacy.

Here are some works I used for this peer review that might help you out: Warne, R. R. 2006. Literature as pulpit: the Christian social activism of Nellie L. McClung. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1433259.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/bound-not-gagged/2016/01/seven-important-parts-nellie-mcclungs-dynamic-and-complicate

https://www.ournellie.com/learn/about-nellie/

Hroitberg (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Helen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breannapalmer (talk • contribs)