Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Vindication of the Rights of Men


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

A Vindication of the Rights of Men
The last in my series of articles on the major works of Mary Wollstonecraft, this article discusses her first major political work. This article was the most difficult of the entire series to write because of the historical topicality of the book. Questions were raised at the peer review as to whether or not the page provides enough background knowledge for the reader to properly understand VRM. I have expanded the "Historical context" section, but I fear much more expansion will begin to defeat the point of an article on VRM. However, if readers unfamiliar with the text are still unable to grasp the major points of the debate Wollstonecraft was entering, I do want to know about it! Awadewit | talk  08:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support (see below) Lovingly crafted piece of work. Kudos! -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 08:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support *Oppose Per the discussion at Talk:A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men, changed oppose to support per agreement on talk page). --Alabamaboy 20:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC) As always, Awadewit has done amazing work with a not-well-known subject. This article will definately serve as the most authoritative online source of info on this subject. One small question, though: why are there lines after the block quote in the "Sensibility" section? Also, is there no modern (i.e., last 50 to 100 years) information or analysis that can be added to the "Reception and legacy" section? Seems a bit limited to have all the info on this work's reception and legacy come from contemporary sources. I know there is info on this since the lead states, "This analysis of the Rights of Men reigned until the 1970s, when feminist scholars began to read Wollstonecraft's texts with more attention and discovered their sophistication" (with that sentence refering to info in the "Structure and major arguments" section). So this modern historical context should exist and should be more added to the "Reception and legacy" section. However, while I'd like to see these issues addressed, they won't stop me from supporting. Best,--Alabamaboy 11:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally don't mind the lines, as long as they're in the original. I think it adds a nice touch and gives us a view of her biting editorial style. Again, though, only if it's in the original. Wrad 16:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The lines after the blockquote in the "Sensibility" section are supposed to be there - I tried to indicate this in the prose by writing "typogragically" and explaining their meaning. I have removed that word and left in the "with dashes" along with the explanation. Hopefully that will be clearer now. Awadewit | talk  19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reception of the book at the time, during the Revolution Controversy, is far more significant than the reception of the book now - that is why the weight towards the eighteenth century. Also, scholars do not spend much time analyzing the reception of VRM during the twentieth century, so I feel that the space I have accorded that sufficiently reflects what is in the published work. Since I can only include what is published and I cannot synthesize a history of the scholarship myself, I am very limited in that respect. Let me know if you think I have made the best decision here. Awadewit | talk  19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The lines aren't that big a deal, but if one is quoting a section you can simply not include the lines in the quoted part. Just FYI, you will have many editors over the years removing those lines because they don't get what they are. What truly troubles me, though, is not inserting modern statements on the book's influence and legacy. For example in Philosophy of Woman: An Anthology of Classic to Current Concepts by Mary Briody, 1994, Hackett Publishing, page 113, it states (refering to the book), "Wollstonecraft's concept of human nature anticipates the utilitarian view of the essential freedom and intelligence of every individual." That one modern view of the book I found with a simply research search; there is more out there. While this is a good article, without a modern view of the book's importance, I must reluctantly oppose. --Alabamaboy 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to state that I still support keeping the lines in, for the reasons stated earlier by myself and Awadewit. As for the rest, I have no opinion yet. Wrad 20:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The lines are essential to the quote, as I explain in the article. The article also has a hidden comment instructing editors not to remove the lines, since they are in the original. I'm really not sure what the objection to the lines really is - perhaps the objection really is that the article does not explain them well enough? Here is the sentence explaining the quote: In one of the most dramatic moments of the Rights of Men, Wollstonecraft claims to be moved beyond Burke's tears for Marie Antoinette and the monarchy of France to silence for the injustice suffered by slaves, a silence she represents with dashes meant to express feelings more authentic than Burke's - how can this be improved? Awadewit | talk  22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

--Carabinieri 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A great article, indeed. There, however, some things I'd like to see fixed before I support:
 * "In her first unabashedly feminist critique, a critique which remains unsurpassed in its argumentative force,[2] Wollstonecraft indicts Burke's defense of an unequal society founded on the passivity of women." "unsurpassed in its argumentative force" is hardly NPOV, even if its referenced. I'm sure there are people who found Wollstonecraft uncovincing.
 * I'm familiar with this line. I believe what is meant is that Feminist scholars often consider this piece as one of the best-written feminist arguments ever written. Is that right? Wrad 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that Wrad's interpretation is what Johnson intended. I don't really see this as POV, since it comes from one of the most prominent Wollstonecraft scholars in the world. I checked WP:NPOV again to see if perhaps this was stepping over the line, but I believe that it is not. In fact, since Johnson is so important, I believe that the article is obligated to present her view:
 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). [emphasis in original]
 * Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate.
 * Your thoughts? Awadewit | talk  02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that it's a POV that needs to be presented, but the article currently presents it as fact. I hope you're ok with the way I changed the sentence to clearly attribute this opinion to Johnson.--Carabinieri 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. For some reason, I thought you were referring to the same statement which appears later in the article. It does have Johnson's name attached to it. I have added "Wollstonecraft scholar" before her name in the lead, otherwise the reader has no reason to listen to her opinion. Awadewit | talk  02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "As the first response in what would later become known as the "Revolution Controversy", the Rights of Men was successful: it was reviewed by every major periodical of the day and the first edition sold out in three weeks." I'm not sure why Revolution Controversy is in quotation marks. The article on the controversy doesn't suggest the term is the title of anything. If the reason is that its a word being used as a word, then it should get italics according to WP:MOS. The same thing goes for its use in the first section.
 * Italicized. Awadewit | talk  02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Radicals saw this period, which included the 1794 Treason Trials, as "the institution of a system of TERROR, almost as hideous in its features, almost as gigantic in its stature, and infinitely more pernicious in its tendency, than France ever knew".[12]" Who said this? The footnote only tells the secondary source the quote is taken from.
 * The secondary source, if I remember correctly, does not give the author. I'm pretty sure that I would have put it in, if the source had had that information. It may have been anonymous. Awadewit | talk  02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wollstonecraft wrote frantically while her publisher Joseph Johnson printed the pages." Perhaps this is just ignorance on my part, but what do you mean exactly with Johnson having printed them? Does that just mean that he started typesetting the pamphlet while she was still writing? Or did he actually start the publication already?
 * He was just printing - typesetting and printing sheets. I used the word printing to distinguish this from the publication of the book, but this seems to be a place of confusion for readers (see peer review). Could you suggest an alternative wording? Should I actually mention that he was setting and printing the sheets but not publishing them? Awadewit | talk  02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The best I can think of is "was already preparing publication alongside", but that is a bit more vague than the way you phrased it.--Carabinieri 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should link to some sort of printing page? :) Awadewit | talk  02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How about: "…Johnson prepared the pages for publication"? A bit alliterative, but seems like a fair way to phrase it. – Scartol  ·  Talk  01:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See new version in article. Awadewit | talk  08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wollstonecraft successfully challenges Burke's rhetoric of the beautiful with the rhetoric of the rational." Succesfully?
 * Following the sources. Awadewit | talk  02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that I didn't exactly understand what "succesful" was supposed to mean in this context. Does it mean that she was able to convince her readers?--Carabinieri 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Scholars now find it successful; some readers may have. I tried to address eighteenth-century readership specifically in the "Reception" section. Awadewit | talk  02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wollstonecraft sent a copy of the book to the historian Catharine Macaulay, whom she greatly admired; Macaulay wrote back: I am “still more highly pleased that this publication which I have so greatly admired from its pathos & sentiment should have been written by a woman and thus to see my opinion of the powers and talents of the sex in your pen so early verified”" Wouldn't it be more proper to replace & with [and]? To me, it seems kind of odd to have an ampersand in encyclopedic writing.
 * I generally refrain from altering quotations unless absolutely necessary. I think most people know that the ampersand means and. (This follows the MOS, too - (WP:MOSQUOTE). Awadewit | talk  02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I just WP:DONTLIKEIT.--Carabinieri 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that page before. I like it. :) Awadewit | talk  02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 05:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ --My apologies for not reading this more closely first time round. I should like to see the following addressed before I whole-heartedly support. I still think it's a lovingly-crafted piece. :)
 * Various stylistic points:
 * swordpoint > sword point
 * Fixed. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * theories presuppose." > theories presuppose".
 * The period is part of the quotation, so it belongs inside the quotation marks per WP:PUNC. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't applied WP:PUNC correctly. You've incorporated a sentence fragment (albeit lengthy) into the logical thrust of the whole sentence. Therefore, the point sits outside the quotation marks.-- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * who she had met > whom she had met
 * Fixed. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * as much or more so than > as much as or more than
 * Fixed. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * one shilling, six pence > one shilling and six pence
 * Fixed. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * the Regency bill > the Regency Bill (it passed the Commons but not the Lords}
 * Fixed. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Is there a source for "expensive three shillings, sold an astonishing 30,000 copies ..." What is astonishing about 30,000 when Paine's sold 200,000 copies? And how much was the The Rights of Man (to balance the comparison)?
 * As I mentioned on my talk page, the source is Butler - pages 35 and 108 (Butler describes 30,000 as "a prodigious number"). The publication of Paine's RM is considerably more complicated since it was published in two parts - why don't we just say "cheaper"? When comparing the numbers, you have to take into account that most books printed at this time came in print runs of hundreds and a few as many as 1,000-2,000. Also, there were only 7 million people in the country, and the number of those that were literate was not all that high. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My point about the "astonishing" 30,000 was that Paine's 200,000 is seven times more astonishing but it passes 'unsuperlativized'. I'm wondering why 30,000 is more astonishing than 200,000. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is important to make the point that 30,000 copies was "astonishing", as it doesn't sound like a lot to modern readers. The "however" in the Paine sentence, along with the number of copies, makes it clear that Paine's book was more popular. The facts speak for themselves. Awadewit | talk  08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is the point you are making, perhaps it could be made more explicit: "However, Thomas Paine's rejoinder, The Rights of Man (1792), greatly outsold it, with over 200,000 sales", for example. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Similar version added. Awadewit | talk  00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The ref is for the reader's benefit not mine. I'm astonished, after two promptings, that you haven't added it.-- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I explained on my talk page, the reference is in the note at the end of the Paine sentence - I asked you if you thought I should split the reference between the sentences, but you did not respond. Do you want me to split the reference? I was simply trying to condense references. Awadewit | talk  08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement needs an explicit reference, per WP:PROVEIT. Add it as you wish. (Why is this so laborious?)-- R OGER D AVIES  TALK
 * Reference split into two inline citations. Awadewit | talk  00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * --Your use of Oxford spelling ("-ize/-ization") is fine but the following do jar in a BrEng political/literary topic:
 * defense > defence
 * labor > labour
 * leveling > levelling)
 * reevaluation > re-evaluation
 * by practicing > by practising
 * Burke fulfills > Burke fulfils
 * On the point about BE, again, as I mentioned on my talk page, I write in AE since that is the dialect I am most familiar with. It is the dialect in which I can produce "brilliant prose". Changing the spelling of a few words without changing diction and syntax is a token gesture, in my opinion, and not particularly useful since it would make it more difficult for me to maintain the page (alas, there are currently no other editors working on the page). Awadewit | talk  17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are being unduly modest. None of these difficulties are insurmountable for a scholar of your ability, especially when - as you say - the differences between formal well-written BrEng and AmEng are slight, and you have a crib sheet to work from. A token gesture perhaps, but the AmEng spellings drop as noisely into an 18th century BrEng literary environment as BrEng would in an article about the (American) Civil war. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the differences between AE and BE are quite significant. I really see no reason to alter the spelling, diction, and syntax of this article. We would be doing Wollstonecraft no honor in writing her article in twenty-first century BE when she spoke eighteenth-century Yorkshire English. I fail to see the logic of this argument - it privileges subjects who can be written about in English dialects - what about Dante? Shouldn't we write about him in Italian, then? I think that quality prose is far more important than nationalistic prose. Awadewit | talk  08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The differences between AE and BE are quite significant They are? Yet you've inadvertently managed to write an article in BrEng, other than the occasional AmEng spelling.
 * I really do not know modern BE and the differences are more extensive than mere spelling. Awadewit | talk  00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the analogy. Wollstonecraft might well have spoken with a Yorkshire burr (cf. the Brontës) but people of quality simply didn't use dialect, that would be to enter the province of the great unwashed.
 * Wollstonecraft was not a person of quality. She was hired help - a companion, a governess, and the head of a school. She finally descended to being a writer. Awadewit | talk  00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say she was but that was her milieu. (You may be mistaking social class for financial status.) She was "middle-class" and "genteel ... of small means" (ODNB); and spent her early years in the London and Essex. The chances of her speaking Yorkshire dialect in her everyday life are practically nil. Here's a website devoted to it. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 03:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wollstonecraft spent her formative years in Yorkshire (also, the place where she spent the most time out of any in her entire life). She actually wrote later in life that she spoke with a Yorkshire accent. This information used to be in the Mary Wollstonecraft article, but it was decided that it was unnecessary. If you go back in the history, you can see it. Check the talk page, too.
 * I know. That's why I said Yorkshire burr (accent), above. You said she spoke in Yorkshire English (dialect). -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 07:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you know, then you should respect Wollstonecraft's linguistic roots enough not to demand that the article be written in an accent she never spoke in. It's a travesty. :) Awadewit | talk  07:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm strong enough to transliterate this lot into a Yorkshire burr :))) Happily, BrEng respects her written linguistic roots. She didn't write "fulfills", "defense", "labor", "honor" etc but "fulfils", "defence", "labour" and "honour". Modern BrEng still uses those spellings, AmEng doesn't. :))) -- R OGER D AVIES   TALK 09:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By the end of the 1770s the Wollstonecraft family resources had sunk to a low ebb. As the Wollstonecraft children looked about them, prospects for the future must have seemed very gloomy, particularly for the girls. Poverty seriously undermined a middle-class woman's opportunities in the marriage market, while remaining unwed reduced her status and life chances even further. Throughout the eighteenth century employment opportunities for such women were very thin on the ground. Teaching, governessing, needlework, serving as a lady's companion: these were among the few jobs open to genteel women of small means, and by the late 1780s Mary Wollstonecraft had done—and hated—them all. Literary work, however, was also open to women with the confidence, or the desperation, to attempt it - This paragraph from the ODNB emphasizes Wollstonecraft's "poverty" and "desperation", not her "gentility". Awadewit |  talk  06:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know this too. Emphasizing her poverty doesn't make her working class. That's why I suggested above that social class and financial status weren't the same. Thanks for the thought though :) -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 07:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't ever say she was "working class" - I said she was "hired help", which this quote amply demonstrates. I think that this quote demonstrates the problem with trying to apply modern labels to an eighteenth-century economic structure. Best to explain the situation rather than just use the labels, eh? Awadewit | talk  07:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will assume that your apparent repeated conflation of AmEng with "brilliant prose" and "quality prose" is merely unfortunate phrasing. The fact remains that this article needs to comply with WP:MOS. It currently doesn't. I have already offered you a crib sheet, which you refuse to use. I now suggest that dialect-neutral [shudder] words may be the way forward. Here are some synonyms and near-synonyms, appropriate to the divers contexts, which may help:
 * defense > defending, support, aid, portrayal, depiction etc. (The statement "... Burke for supporting the elite, most notably in his defense of Marie Antoinette" can be concisely recast as "for supporting the elite, most notably Marie Antoinette", with no significant loss of meaning.)
 * labor > work
 * leveling > equalizing
 * reevaluation > reassessment
 * by practicing > by pursuing
 * Burke fulfills > Burke manifests? I'm not this works largely because the entire sentence is odd: "Burke fulfills the worst of his own ideas"!? I suggest a rewrite.
 * I hope this enables us to move this forward. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I never intended to conflate "brilliant prose" with AE. I think that editors should write in the dialect most familiar to them so that it is easier for them to produce brilliant prose. It is hard to write well when having to worry about national dialects. One of the reasons I am so resistant to the BE spelling, syntax, and diction changes is because I am the sole editor and maintainer of this page (as well as all the other pages on Wollstonecraft's works). I would be happy to have other editors working with me, but, as I have said, there currently aren't any. If there were, the situation would be different. Also, I am quite concerned that you are characterizing BE as mere spelling differences when it is clear that diction and syntax are involved as well. Leaving out these other significant differences fails to respect the linguistic diversity of the English language. Awadewit | talk  00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The maintenance issues are easily solved. You look after content; I'll take care of dialect.
 * It is a mistake to rely on American and British English differences too heavily. Much of what it discusses is vernacular and doesn't find its way into formal writing. Plus, its agenda is to highlight difference. If you read it closely, you see how often the purported differences are qualified "some", "most often": you'll also notice how much of it is unreferenced.
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 03:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you two look at Manual_of_Style, which is the guideline covering American and British spelling differences. Since this article meets the criteria of "Strong national ties to a topic," it appears British spelling should be used. However, based on the way this type of thing works around here, the person raising these types of spelling issues is usually the person who makes the corrections. Otherwise the spelling isn't changed. I should also state that asking for syntax and diction changes does not fall under any guideline I'm aware of, so Awadewit should be free to keep the writing as she wrote it. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your good faith effort to break the deadlock. However:
 * I've already read WP:ENGVAR and referred to it in this discussion yesterday.
 * The guideline explicitly refers to "spelling and grammar" throughout. That covers syntactical changes.
 * In this case though, I have not proposed any changes from AmEng to BrEng syntax. Formal English is practically identical in both dialects. (When did you last see "gotten" used, except in a direct quote, in a Wikipedia article?)
 * re: Awadewit should be free to keep the writing as she wrote it What does this mean? Any editor may edit any article, that's fundamental policy. Are ownership issues emerging?
 * I'll edit with a view to making it "dialect-neutral".
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope this means that you will continue to maintain the article's dialect neutrality anytime someone introduces something that could be considered AE or BE? Awadewit | talk  03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That goes without saying .... (apart from anything else it will be an interesting challenge) 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Davies (talk • contribs)

*Oppose I take no pleasure in opposing promotion and do so only after much thought. This article has strong national ties to Britain and should be in British English, or at least dialect-neutral ("commonality"). To accommodate practical concerns raised by American editors, I made a few trivial good faith edits to make the article dialect-neutral. Ignoring commonality, these were reverted soon after explicitly so that US English would prevail. This reversion was neither in the spirit of Wikipedia nor in compliance with MoS. This article therefore cannot "exemplif[y] Wikipedia's very best work" nor "meet the featured article criteria". I will gladly support this article, which is in all other respects excellent, once it reflects the consensus of the community at large. Deferring this discussion until after the FAC is closed is putting the cart before the horse. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 11:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support As User:Alabamaboy's oppositions have been addressed, it seems churlish to withhold support on WP:ENGVAR grounds for what remains an extremely well-written article. WP:ENGVAR has been a long-standing issue with the Mary Wollstonecraft articles and although it has not yet been resolved, I feel confident that user:Awadewit will take what has been discussed to heart in the future. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 18:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. As usual, Awadewit has hit this one out of the park. I've left a few comments on the article's talk page, but nothing at all significant which would stay my hand in voting for it as an FA. I believe the last paragraph does a fine job of bringing in a 20th-century perspective, and I think the inclusion of the much-disputed lines is valuable. I'd also like to say that I especially like seeing the use of tasteful and varied images in Awadewit's articles. – Scartol  ·  Talk  01:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per my Peer Review comments. I urge Awadewit to grit her teeth and accept the British English usage. It's not a big deal, and there is some logic behind it. If necessary, I'll make the suggested changes myself; I'm no expert on the Queen's English, but can follow the suggestions. Blimey, if guv'nor makes it a condition of supporting this final jewel in the Wollstonecraft crown, then Bob's your uncle! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I rather disagree about the spelling. An American shouldn't have to write in British English. The only exception is when editing an article already in the other style. If I started an article about an American subject, I'd write it in British English without even realising it. I haven't noticed that American scholars change to British English when writing about British subjects for an American publication, and so I think this is one of the great non-issues. I also don't believe one should change an article in order to win the support of reviewers; one should change an article when the reviewers point something out that one agrees could be improved, but for the sake of the article not for the sake of the star.qp10qp 02:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh. We all have our strengths, which is why this encyclopedia is a group project. Mine seem to be in nitpicking, which is why Awadewit asks me to review stuff she writes. But if I started an article about Wollstonecraft, I'd likely lost the basic sense and style of it without even realizing it; that hardly means that that is the thing to do, is it? If you think the spelling is acceptable either way, then you shouldn't object to it being changed to the other way, should you? And of course it's for the sake of the article, that's what we're all here for, that's the point of the star. It's a well intentioned request that makes some sense, and follows our principles, so just do it. Or wait a while, and I'll do it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with qp10qp. FAC reviewers should certainly give the article writer and nominator the courtesy of indifference toward their natural style of English. How far can style over substance be pushed in the FAC room? I can't wait til someone nominates an article in Canadian English. Do you realize off-centre the debate will have gotten by then? (Yes, this does mean that in principle anyone is welcome to change the style of the article, but why? If the nominator is going to be the one primarily maintaining it, it simply makes no sense.) – Outriggr § 04:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the Manual of Style is to maintain consistency across 2,200,000 articles (and growing). Editors come and go; if an stops maintaining their articles, someone else (or a project) will come along sooner or later to take over. They may do a better job, or a worse job, or a different job, but the core articles will continue to grow and develop organically. The Manual of Style preserves continuity and makes it easier for someone else to pick up the reins. This is why personal preferences over punctuation, spelling, heading size, type face, article names, quotations etc are discouraged in favour of a standard form. According the "courtesy of indifference" about these things individually only engenders chaos in the greater scheme.
 * Now to put this business into perspective, I did not ask for complete change. I had left untouched the large number of "-ize/-ization" spellings because, although they are less common in BrEng than "-ise/-isation" endings, they are nevertheless well-established British forms. This left six words - in an article of 5,500 words - with blatantly (obtrusively even, given the context) American spellings. Changing these involved modifying one letter in each of them and I provided a list. This suggestion was declined. I then suggested substituting these for words whose spelling was shared in both variants (dialect-neutral), again providing a list of possibilities. This suggestion was also declined. I have now edited it myself, going for dialect-neutral choices. This way, readers in both the US and the UK will find nothing to stumble over, or to question as a spelling mistake.
 * All the best, -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that the MOS does not provide consistency. It has quite of bit of wiggle room - it does not dictate a house style for many issues (BC/AD vs. BCE/CE, for example) and it is constantly changing. It is far worse for an article to be a hybrid of AE and BE, which only changing the spelling would result in. I do not think so little of our readers that I think British readers can't handle an "-or" occasionally or American readers can't handle an "-our" occasionally. Finally, there are no choices that are completely dialect-neutral and several of the changes you introduced have altered the meaning of the sentences (e.g. replacing "leveling" with "equalizing"). I am currently working on finding other wordings myself, but it may not be possible - "leveling" is the most precise, period-specific term. Awadewit | talk  07:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing's perfect. I disagree incidentally that equalizing in context is a poor substitute for "leveling" though "levelling" would be better. The levelling in question harks back to the Levellers, whose activities the OED defines as "reduc[ing] all men to an equality". This does illustrate perfectly why I first proposed a straight spelling swop. On the "hybrid AE/BE" issue you allege, if you can make a list of phrases that you have used that you believe are uniquely American in construction, we can work through them one by one. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 09:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, it's not about a few words; it's about consistency over a large number of articles on Wollstonecraft and related subjects, which together comprise a potential featured topic. The convention is that the original style of an article should be maintained. I feel that you should either oppose, if you feel strongly about this, or file a minority report. I would advise Awadewit to stick to her guns, because the article is written in accordance with both Wikipedia and scholarly principles.qp10qp 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not quite right about the prevailing convention. MoS says If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. It is difficult to imagine a topic with stronger national ties to British English. I have tried very hard indeed to find compromise on this and will continue to do so but this is increasingly becoming an ownership issue.-- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Qp, I agree with you, especially because I appear to be the sole maintainer of the seven articles on MW's works and one of two maintainers of the Mary Wollstonecraft article itself. However, I have let the changes stand for the moment because I am concerned about starting an edit war if I revert. I wish that Roger Davies could be happy that I have contributed so many articles to wikipedia on eighteenth-century British topics and leave it at that. Awadewit | talk  15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are being admirably polite about this, but to put it bluntly, Roger is simply wrong. A quick glance into one of the scholarly sources given in the references, Claudia Johnson's Equivocal Beings: Politics, Gender, and Sentimentality in the 1790s, published by Chicago University Press, would yield him a "vigor" and a "program" in the first three pages. qp10qp 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I shall be admirably polite to you in return. I went back to the earliest reliable source I could find for the examples I quoted; in this case, the scanned third edition of A Vindication of the rights of Woman published in 1796. "Program" was often spelt thus in 16th-18th century (OED). "Vigor", by contrast, does not appear at all in the OED's historic citations: it may have been a typo in the original manuscript, or a typo by Johnson's publishers. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's how Americans spell "vigour". Today. Including when they are writing about Mary Wollstonecraft.qp10qp 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, you've completely lost me. I'd expect American publishers to use AmEng, wouldn't you? -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not an "ownership" issue as Roger has characterized it. The issue has already been discussed at Mary Wollstonecraft and the decision was made to stick with American English throughout. I see no compelling reason to change all of these articles (most of which are already featured) from their established spelling conventions. Mary Wollstonecraft's life and work are subjects of international interest and importance. The fact that Wollstonecraft was British does not necessitate these articles to be written in British English, IMHO. And yes, I am familiar with the applicable style guidelines. Kaldari 16:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is talking about reviewing past FAC decisions. And there's no reason why, with a little cooperation all round, this shouldn't pass here. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Can we have a little more "assume good faith" here? Awadewit is not owning the article. Someone else said she should be able to keep it the way she wrote it. She never said any such thing, nor would she ever. She's more open to changing her prose than anybody I've ever met on wikipedia. Please stop accusing her of article ownership. Also, keep the American spelling, it's fine. It's the way she wrote it, and that actually does carry a lot of weight in MoS guidelines. This is an undecided issue, so favor should go with what's already there. Wrad 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've assumed good faith all along and will continue to do so. Personal preferences have been expressed here by a number of editors that go way beyond the usual FAC discussion. TYou can draw your own conclusions from that. My arguments have been entirely linguistic ones: for example, "leveling" is one step less resonant with "Leveller" than "levelling". Yet change has been resisted on the grounds that it will tarnish "brilliant prose"!?
 * What I do not understand is the amount of heat an utterly trivial proposal has generated. What I thought was an excellent compromise, the dialect-neutral option - well within our capabilities - has been dismissed out of hand and, by some, rather irritably.
 * Your interpretation of the MoS guidelines is not quite accurate. They are explicitly designed to prevent this kind of situation and (I paraphrase) say that "strong national ties" trump "editorial preference".
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 18:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure: Kaldari is the other editor who maintains the Mary Wollstonecraft page with me. I asked her to comment on this issue, since it might conceivably affect her as well. Awadewit | talk  17:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, while I respect Awadewit's work on literary article at Wikipedia, raising the ownership issue is extremely valid. I have noticed before that Awadewit has WP:OWN issues with her articles and this is an issue I raised a few minutes ago on this discussion page. In fact, I believe that it is this ownership issue which caused two editors who originally supported this FAC (myself and ROGER DAVIES) to change to oppose when relatively minor suggestions we made were brushed aside for questionable reasons. With regards to the spelling issue, as I mentioned above the MOS indicates that in this case British spelling should be used. However, WP convention is that the person raising a spelling issue should be the one to fix it. When I said Awadewit should be able to keep the article the way she wrote it, I meant with regards to grammar and other styles of writing; however, that was merely my view of the situation. Obviously, as with any WP article, consensus is what matter most. --Alabamaboy 18:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, at what point does protecting the article's accuracy become owning the article? All I see from Awadewit is a concern for accuracy, not ownership. The fact is, she knows the sources well, better than other people do, better than all of us do, so she would know better than us what is accurate. I don't see any problem with your idea that the writing should stay as she wrote it in many cases, I just take issue with how what you said has been construed into an ownership problem by others. Wrad 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In what conceivable sense is changing "defense" to "defence" an accuracy issue!? -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 19:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nothing wrong with protecting the article's accuracy. But while Awadewit is a good editor, your comment "The fact is, she knows the sources well, better than other people do, better than all of us do, so she would know better than us what is accurate" flies in the face of everything that Wikipedia stands for. One editor does not get to decide what is or is not a valid source, a legitimate view of the scholarly record, or how any article should be structured. As it says below this editing box, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly..., do not submit it." And Awadewit's overall arguement is that she knows what the overall scholarship says and that others do not, which is a personal opinion. So yes, ownership of this article is at the heart of the problem.--Alabamaboy 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I have presented a cogent argument for why I would like to remove your paragraph (see way above). Of course part of that argument is going to be "I have read extensively on Wollstonecraft - see the "Bibliographies" of all of the MW articles". Part of wikipedia is about trust. If you do not trust that I have adequately represented those works, you can obviously check my work. I have provided ample footnotes and references. But there is no need to rehash everything I have said above. As no one else has weighed in on this debate, there is no real consensus yet. Would others please take the time to analyze the dispute over the influence of the VRM and weigh in? Thanks. Awadewit | talk  21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Whoo. Folks, calm, please. I see that Roger Davies has implemented his suggestions, which were half a dozen minor or trivial changes, and they haven't been warred over, so can we safely say that this is concluded,and we can move on to the next issue? That's what we call consensus around here, it doesn't mean everyone agrees, it just means those who disagree aren't willing to spill blood over it any more, which I greatly advise. In fact, I'd like to be able to remove the last dozen or so paragraphs above this, as they are more about editors, not about the article, while this is supposed to be an article review. Can we get back to the article now, please? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think any of this should be removed b/c I'm not sure anything is resolved. If all parties agree it is resolved, then yes, remove all this. Otherwise no.--Alabamaboy 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, let's start with the most important one. Awadewit, you wrote, "I have let the changes stand for the moment because I am concerned about starting an edit war if I revert." Are you happy willing with gritted teeth to let the changes stand a bit longer than for the moment? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of Awadewit's opinion on the matter, I have reverted some of the spelling changes. We should address this issue after the FA bid (as this is not the proper venue for the debate) and implement a consistent approach for all of the Wollstonecraft articles. Kaldari 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Wrad 20:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Postponing the BE/AE debate sounds like a good idea. Alabamaboy's point regarding the influence of VRM is actually much more substantive and this debate has deflected attention away from it, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk  21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Lead is a bit lengthy. Perhaps the second paragraph could be tightened up a bit? Otherwise I find nothing in need of improvement. It is an excellent article which meets all of the featured article criteria, IMO. Kaldari 20:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead has been shortened. Qp10qp removed the quotation - alas to must go, I fear. See if it is an improvement [reposting paraphrased version of comment - somehow it was deleted]. Awadewit | talk  22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved it from the lead to the body, because I didn't feel it was followed up. In the body, it follows up the point in the lead about Burke's theatrical pity. Please revert whatever you wish, of course. (The article is excellent, just trying a few tweaks.)qp10qp


 * Support. An excellent article, although a careless reader might miss some of the best parts.  First off, I commend Awadewit for denoting Wollstonecraft as a feminist in the very first sentence (rather than a more cautious term such as "writer") as it presages the arguments to follow.  The scholarly tone and references are superb, although I miss somewhat of Wollstonecraft's stark eloquence; some elements that might be included in a later version might include


 * I'll put my re-replies in magenta, so that we can keep track; I'm apt to get confused! In general, I feel that I need more time to think through how to best carry out some of the improvements, which in any event don't alter my support for the article as is.


 * Perhaps expand on the "merit" that Wollstonecraft admires: the exercise of the mind; invention sharpened by necessity; “honest fame and the friendship of the virtuous"; "talent, knowledge, virtue"
 * I'm not really sure what to add to the paragraph on the middle-class ethos. I have a list of middle-class values, including what "merit" is, a quote from a scholar, an explanation of some of the symbolism (middle-class values are often associated with Richard Price in VRM), as well as a connection to a later MW work. What would you like to see added? Awadewit | talk  22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Contrast with the weakening effect of luxury on the aristocracy, and all people whose wants are readily supplied by sinecures; "pleasanter to enjoy rather than think"; the deleterious effects of primogeniture on families
 * Should we put this in the "Attack against rank and hierarchy" section? This is one major point of the work and all of the scholars I have read focus on it quite a bit. Do you think we should begin the section with the "weakening" effect and then move into the description of the middle-class? That is how I originally had it structured. I think what you are basically saying is that more needs to be said regarding the attack on the aristocracy? Awadewit | talk  22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think more emphasis might be given to Wollstonecraft's polemic; her critique of Burke's powers of reasoning; his inconsistencies and insincerities; her suggestion that his contrarian Reflections are merely a fame-grab by a politician whose popularity has faded; her point that Burke is not reasoning from "fixed principles" but from feelings; her "heavy charge" of religious hypocrisy against Burke and her "stripping [him] of [his] cloak of sanctity"
 * These are actually several different points.
 * Her critique of Burke's reasoning is mixed up with her critique of his aesthetic and his use of sensibility - his "inconsistencies" are, in a way, his "insincerities". Do you think I should expand the "Sensibility" section, then?
 * My reading of her work is that they are not so irrevocably intertwined. At several points, she criticizes him for logical inconsistency, without reference to his aesthetics or sensibilities.  Her recurrence to this point and her insistence that reasoning should be carried out from consistent fixed principles a la Euclid or Spinoza I find compelling and illustrative of her argument.
 * See below on the problems of including "your reading", however fascinating or sound it may be. :) Awadewit | talk  00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concede that it's probably better for Wikipedia as a rule to rely on secondary sources rather than quoting from the primary text, for the reasons you've outlined below. I won't argue the point further, and my Support for FA is unwavering.  But I mourn, I grieve the loss here.  I respect the scholars' devotion and acknowledge their decades of research; and I am nobody to presume to challenge their conclusions.  But in my opinion, the casual reader would benefit from more direct contact with Wollstonecraft, from being given a spark of Wollstonecraft's fire to inflame the dry tinder. Willow 01:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Her ad hominem attacks are not really addressed by scholars much. They are scathing and brilliant, but just not mentioned. I feel like I have addressed those in proportion to their representation in the scholarship.
 * Religious hypocrisy is another idea that is only briefly mentioned in the scholarship - even by Barbara Taylor, who has made a name for herself discussing MW's religion. Awadewit | talk  22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the wish to stay close to secondary sources, for fear perhaps of misunderstanding Wollstonecraft's meaning. But she writes so plainly and so well, that it's hard to imagine how we or any other reader might mistake her meaning.  I say give the genius more air-time, let us thrill as she wanted her readers to.  In my opinion, the description of the primary work should not be exclusively circumscribed by what secondary scholars have chosen to turn their attention to; for some great works, that might be a paltry feast indeed.
 * The desire to stick close to secondary sources is not for fear of misunderstanding, it is for the sake of "verifiability" and for literary theoretical reasons. Literary theorists (and myself) believe that not everyone reads a text in the same way. So, for example, what is plain and clear to you, is not plain and clear to everyone else. A perfect example of this is that many reviews of Burke's work in the eighteenth century praised its logic. Few scholars would do so now. You write "it's hard to imagine how we or any other reader might mistake her meaning". Again, literary theorists (and myself) would argue that there is not just one meaning in any particular passage and that knowing which meaning was "Wollstonecraft's" is well-nigh impossible (see intentional fallacy). I agree that if we limit ourselves to secondary works, we are often missing important points (in the case of Original Stories from Real Life, I definitely felt that this was the case), but including a description of the work based on my impression of it is most definitely WP:OR.


 * I am deeply disturbed by the trend toward "plot summaries", for example, on wikipedia (but I have been unsuccessful in dislodging them). Plot summaries are not neutral. If you want a demonstration of this, ask five or ten people to give you the summary of a book or a movie - they will be different. The same is true - only more so - for the description of an argument. (I just gave a quiz in my class on argumentative writing and 20 people came up with 20 different descriptions of an article's argument.) That is why it is so very important in wikipedia to rely on sources for claims about what a book is saying. Without those sources, it could just be me saying it - and who am I? (Hopefully I am somebody authoritative someday soon, but not yet!). I hope that explains a bit about my fanatical desire for sources. In the humanities, much more is subjective and in dispute than in the sciences and nothing is absolute. :)


 * Also, as a side now, the whole "genius" and "great writer" thing has kind of been left by the way side. Only Harold Bloom really does that anymore. Awadewit | talk  00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In particular, the charge of an insincere "fame-grab" is worth noting, and is likely more biting for cynical 21st-century readers than the "religious hypocrisy" charge, although I guess the reverse was true 200 years ago.


 * ...and also to her own characterization of herself as "manly", warrior-like and noble. I personally love the quote where she does not stoop to attack his more ridiculous assertions, saying that "a lion does not eat carcasses".
 * This would be the "Gender and aesthetics" section - obviously choices had to be made. This article, like any, could be enormous. The passage I quoted in that section is the most-oft quoted passage from VRM, so I thought it was important to discuss that one. Do you think I should discuss MW's gender-persona more in that section? That is not an unimportant point - it is just one that I gave less precedence to as I was deciding what to highlight. Awadewit | talk  22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes please, that's a good idea; a little more about her gender persona and her imagery of herself in the text.


 * Her concession that Price may have overstepped his reason in "Utopian reveries" and that the pulpit is not necessarily a good place for political discussions
 * This is a minor point, I feel, particularly if you look at some of the others that you would like to see expanded; it is also not one that I remember seeing emphasized in the research. Awadewit | talk  22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this point could be made briefly, and would improve the article significantly, since Burke's attack on Price's "unreasonable transports" are so important to the former's Reflections. It also balances the claim that Wollstonecraft was being unreasonable.
 * I think it is more important to the Reflections article - I sense another project, after Joseph Johnson. Awadewit | talk  00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Her concession that the world is a grossly imperfect place, with many evils visited by humans on one another; yet she holds out hope that championing Reason over old instincts, habits and traditions will lead to a better world
 * This is actually an odd hybrid of a Protestant and an Enlightenment view. I tried to discuss this in the "Republicanism" section - this would be the best place to add more, I think. Awadewit | talk  22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I find her optimism on the generally positive influence of Reason remarkably foresighted, although I'm not widely read in that era; perhaps it was commonplace? I think it also significant that she concedes to Burke that, yes, the world is nasty, and that she wasn't imagining that France would become a Heaven on Earth.
 * Yes, it was common, among a particular group of radicals (see Joseph Priestley, for example, and our friend, JJ). Awadewit | talk  00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some mention of her religious views; from my reading, she was rather anti-Catholicism and anti-Islam, but not completely so; her belief that God's justice is based on reason
 * There is just not that much written on religion and VRM. Scholarship on MW and religion is quite new (Taylor's book - Mary Wollstonecraft and the Feminist Imagination discusses MW as a deeply religious thinker and it made waves - feminists often like to resist the religious roots of their movement). Anyway, I think focusing on the religious elements of the book misrepresents the published material on VRM (I happen to agree with you and am currently submitting an article for publication on MW the religious writer for children - one reason I happen to know for sure that this is not a widely held view). Awadewit | talk  22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Luckily for us, we're discussing a person and her work, not a movement. ;) Here again, I would favor citing or even quoting the primary text, although that might be more fraught than above.  It's a relatively minor point for this article, although my sense is that religion was a major point for Wollstonecraft as she wrote VRM.
 * I agree that religion is a major point for MW in VRM - I just don't think I can support that with citations from scholars. And, as I explained above, allowing my reading of the text to dominate the article would be a serious breach of WP:OR. It would be akin to me publishing an article on MW on wikipedia, really. Awadewit | talk  00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The present discussion of her critique of Burke's "conservatism for its own sake" and "property as a value in its own right" seems very good, although the references to the crucifixion and to slavery could perhaps be handled with more finesse. (Living in the country, I also liked the example of lords who let their deer feed off the gardens of their tenants, who live from those gardens but who would be killed for defending them from the deer.) The present discussion of the great landowner's "wisdom that finds [the poor] employments calculated to give them habits of virtue" seems also pretty good, although the current presentation of "dividing the estates into privately owned plots for each family to meet their own needs" seems a little more socialist than Wollstonecraft may have intended.


 * Did you have the sense that the great landowners would give away those plots to their tenants? My reading was that the great undeveloped forests and game preserves would be divided up to take land away from wild animals and help support more families, without the transfer of ownership.  But I didn't read that part too carefully. Willow 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that MW actually thought they would - I think that she wished they would. But that's my interpretation. :) Awadewit | talk  00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have transferred the suggestions we agree on here, since this page is ridiculously long. Check and see if I got them all. (How about we use green next time? Magenta hurts my eyes for some reason.) Awadewit | talk  09:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have started to address Willow's points - some quotations have been added to illustrate MW's attack on Burke's reasoning as well as her polemic style. If we can't talk about it exactly, we can show it. Awadewit | talk  05:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to support the notion that the British/American spelling is a small tweak than can be best decided among cooler heads after the FAC, and not on this page. Willow 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. From the length of this FAC page, I feared this might be a thorny article in some way. Not at all. It is a cogent, concise account of the work, in my opinion, written in clear, encyclopedic (if one can gauge such a thing) language. Congratulations to Awadewit for an excellent article. (I've added a few minor observations and queries to the article's talk page.) qp10qp 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on addition to article
I've inserted a break above so aid discussion and moved the relevant discussion points to Talk:A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men (I moved this info because it was cluttering up the page and seemed more relevant to the article's talk page than here). Awadewit and I have presented different sides on an the addition of this paragraph to the article (note that I've had to reform the references to people can see them):

"Overall, Rights of Men was far more recognized in its own time than today. Still, some scholars have stated that without first creating Rights of Men, Wollstonecraft would never have written her far more famous and influential feminist treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.(ref 'Mary Wollstonecraft's 'Wild Wish': Confounding Sex in the Discourse on Political Rights' by Wendy Gunther-Canada, from Feminist Interpretations of Mary Wollstonecraft edited by Maria J. Falco, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996, page 61.)(ref Women Philosophers: Genre and the Boundaries of Philosophy by Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Westview Press, 2003, page 95-96.) Both essays cover similar issues of writing style and sincerity, so much so that it has been said A Vindication of the Rights of Men provides 'the key to understanding the second Vindication,' (ref Women Philosophers: Genre and the Boundaries of Philosophy by Catherine Villanueva Gardner, Westview Press, 2003, page 95-96.) especially regarding the 'general social and political principles which underlay A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.' (refWomen's Political and Social Thought: An Anthology by Hilda L. Smith, Indiana University Press, 2000, page 155.)"

Arguments for and against are on the article's talk page. We are asking for people to come to a consensus on whether this information is acceptable and neither of us will back down on this. Please comment on the talk page at Talk:A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Men. Thanks.--Alabamaboy 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have created a compromise version of Alabamaboy's addition that addresses Awadewit's concerns. I think Alabamaboy was correct that the article needed to more prominently mention the relationship between the two Vindications. However, Awadewit was also correct that there were serious problems with Alabamaboy's presentation of the issue. Kaldari 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. As I said on the other page, I support the compromise language.--Alabamaboy 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Comprehensive, accessible, very well illustrated, and (to my ears) beautifully and sparingly wrtitten. I've been following the discussion above, but as a general reader -ie as one for whom the article was written- whoosh; over my head. Ceoil 17:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.