User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 2

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Do you still want help on A Vindication of the Rights of Woman? I should like help on Cicero, if you have the time. Brainmuncher 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like some copyediting help on the page. What kind of help are you looking for on Cicero? Awadewit 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Any kind of help that brings it closer to a Good Article. Some of it hasn't been copyedited. Perhaps you could review it? Brainmuncher 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Awadewit 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Essay style

You may remember this exchange from the Anna Laetitia Barbauld FAC:

"...it seems to me that the text sometimes lapses into essay style..."

"I'm not sure what to do about the essay-style. Might you expand a little on the difference between essay-style and wikistyle?"

I said I'd come back to you on that, and, at the risk of annoying you, here we go. Having seen your comments around the place, I'm guessing you don't mind a robust argument, so I hope you'll take the following in that spirit and not as an attack, which it certainly isn't (if you weren't so good, I wouldn't bother):

OK, I felt there were two places where the mode of discourse moved from describing opinions to asserting them, cites notwithstanding. It isn't enough, in my view, to reference an arguable view to a writer; the view, if arguable or controversial, should be balanced by opposing views. I'm thinking of NPOV policy—in particular: "But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct." The first place where I felt an essay style (the arguing of a case) crept in was this:

Barbauld’s remarkable disappearance from the literary landscape took place for a number of reasons. One of the most important was the disdain heaped upon her by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth, poets who in their youthful, radical days had looked to her for inspiration, but in their later, conservative years turned against her. Once these poets had become canonized, their opinions held sway.[29] Moreover, the intellectual ferment that Barbauld was an important part of—particularly at the dissenting academies—had, by the end of the nineteenth century, come to be associated with the “philistine” middle class, as Matthew Arnold would so eloquently and damningly phrase it. Thus, not only was she attacked as a dissenter, she was also attacked as part of the middle-class. The emerging eighteenth-century middle class that had advocated for the reform of education in England and other causes such as the abolition of slavery had, in many ways, come to be seen as responsible for the greatest abuses of the industrial age.[30]

As literary studies developed into a discipline at the end of the nineteenth century, the story of the origins of Romanticism in England emerged along with it; according to this version of literary history, Coleridge and Wordsworth were the dominant poets of the age.[31] This view held sway for almost a century. Even with the advent of feminist criticism in the 1970s, Barbauld still did not receive her due. As Margaret Ezell explains, feminist critics wanted to resurrect a particular kind of woman—one who was angry, one who resisted the gender roles of her age and one who attempted to create a sisterhood with other women.[32] Barbauld did not easily fit into these categories and it was not until Romanticism and its canon began to be reexamined through a deep reassessment of feminism itself that a picture emerged of the vibrant voice Barbauld had been at the end of the eighteenth century.

The characterisation of Coleridge and Wordsworth here makes them into the cardboard villains of the piece, it seems to me. I am certainly aware of this pair's descent into reactionary attitudes; but I don't know enough about how they affected Barbauld to judge on the information (or lack of it) presented here whether they are guilty as charged of being partly responsible for her disappearance. As this is a potentially controversial accusation, I believe the charge should be made with balanced evidence, rather than taken as read. (I should say here that I am not so much disputing the point itself, which I have no information on, as questioning the way it has been presented.) The article also talks about these poets being "canonised", which sounds to me like biased language (I am guessing that this may be an accepted view in feminist writing, but, once again, it cannot be assumed as fact): the assertion needs to be counterbalanced, in my opinion. The second half of that paragraph produces further arguments that reveal partiality towards Barbauld. The instinct to show her as a victim of reactionary poets, of literary establishment canonisations, of social forces etc. may be understandable; but these aren't facts, they are arguments (or maybe assumptions), and therefore they made me feel I was reading a passage heavily influenced by one particular movement in scholarship.

These are very fair comments and I can totally understand why someone would make them. I should probabaly rewrite the page a bit. It is always hard for me to get out of literary scholar mode and into lay reader mode. First, I want to state that these sections are basically reiterating William McCarthy's arguments. It is not a controversial accusation to say that Coleridge and Wordsworth were responsible for Barbauld's disappearance from literary history within literary studies (however strange it may appear to a lay reader who has heard of Wordsworth and Coleridge and not Barbauld). To present a debate on that issue would be presenting a non-debate or an unbalanced picture of the scholarship.

On the point of canonization, again, there is no dispute that Wordsworth and Coleridge have been canonized (check out some surveys of Romantic literature on the web). The dispute that erupted in the academy in the 80s and early 90s was why certain writers had been included in the canon and others left out. It eventually led to radical questioning of the project of canonization itself. None of these questions regarding the importance of canons have been decided (in the humanities we never decide, we just go on debating) but there is very little debate regarding who was included in the traditional canon (perhaps that is stretching it a bit, but you get the idea).

You are very right to say that the interpretation of Barbauld presented here is heavily influenced by one particular movement in scholarship - that movement is the feminist movement. Barbauld is a "rediscovered" writer and there is not the wealth of material to draw on to write this article for her as there is for a writer like Jane Austen. (See my comment on the talk page regarding the bibliography.) Nearly everything that I have read on Barbauld (and I have read a lot), reads Barbauld from a feminist perspective. I tried to demonstrate this by outlining how her poetry is read from two different feminist perspectives.

This "essay style", as I called it (I'm sure you'll disagree, but I plough on) also affects the language, in my opinion. Since arguing a case tends to stimulate a different word choice than objective description, the language in this part, I felt, became over insistent. For example: "moreover", "eloquently and damningly", "not only...but also", "even with...still", "the vibrant voice". Perhaps this style was used in the sources cited, but I feel that such pushing or non-neutral touches are less suitable for an encyclopedia.

Perhaps, but I feel that wikipedia's de-emphasis of transitions and adjectives is detrimental to the writing here. It becomes dry and it is hard to see connections betwen events. Readers need writers to make connections for them. The requirement for "brilliant prose" cannot be met without these things.

The other passage I felt uneasy about employs, it seems to me, this pushing technique to construct a rhetorical escalation, imparting a rising impact to each new wonder:

But this series is far more than a way to acquire literacy—it also introduces the reader to “elements of society’s symbol-systems and conceptual structures, inculcates an ethics, and encourages him to develop a certain kind of sensibility.”[49]Moreover, it exposes the child to the principles of “botany, zoology, numbers, change of state in chemistry . . . the money system, the calendar, geography, meteorology, agriculture, political economy, geology, [and] astronomy.”[50]

Lessons for Children and Hymns in Prose had, for children’s books, an unprecedented impact; not only did they influence the poetry of William Blake and William Wordsworth[51], they were also used to teach several generations of school children.

The quoting of sources here doesn't moderate this effect, in my opinion. The essay-style words and phrases I would point to here are: "far more than...it also", "moreover", "unprecedented impact", "not only...they were also". I started to feel got at here, as if the article, for the moment, was beating me over the head with how wonderful Barbauld was rather than showing me.

This is precisely the problem I had in the review for the article. Someone, perhaps it was you, suggested that I show Barbauld's "unprecedented impact." Unfortunately, the only way I could think of to do that was to give a history of children's literature, which is not appropriate for this page.

I will make one remark here defending myself. I do not think it is inappropriate for the article writer to tie things together, to explain to the reader. So, if I write her books had an "unprecedented impact," I go on to explain exactly what I mean by that - she influenced major poets and generations of children (all sourced). I think the problem would be if I just left it at "unprecedented impact."

Well, anyway, that's what I meant by "essay style". Please feel free to take my observations with a pinch of salt. As you know, I thought the article was a gem overall. I've since read your Mary Wollstonecraft, which struck me as one of the best articles I've read on Wikipedia, and I would not impute essay style to that one at any point (of course, Wollstonecraft is a better-known figure, and therefore calls for less championing). (The best article I've read on Wikipedia, by the way, is Rudolf Vrba, which I often return to for inspiration on how to write articles here.) All the best. qp10qp 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, by the way. I'll go take a look at the article. If you have time, you might look at my A Vindication of the Rights of Woman article. I am planning on putting it up for FAC in a few weeks. It still needs a little tweaking. Awadewit 22:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Credential verification

You make a good point re the humanities. I hope Jimbo is absorbing all these problems that are being raised. Metamagician3000 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm curious to see what will come of all this. The consensus seem to be not to verify but Jimbo could overrule all of that, as I understand it. Awadewit 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan query

An additional response to your query on Michael Jordan; I hope it's clear by now that Reagan isn't a serious nomination, which is why it isn't getting responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That may be (one can never be sure), but the editors don't seem to understand the serious problems with the page. It has already had a peer-review in which I tried to point out the source problems and the issue with the criticism section. A day or two later it showed up at FAC with not much changed. Awadewit 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the editors don't seem to understand a lot, like how to check history and diffs to see multiple Support votes from only two sources. Anyway, very few reviewers will take time to engage in a review on FAC when it's clearly not a serious endeavor, and the article is too far from ready to even engage. On the other hand, MJ has a committed group of editors, willing to work on the deficiencies, and it stands a chance of making it—hence, worth the effort. Reagan needs a serious peer review (which always takes at least a month), as well as a committed group of editors to correct the deficiencies; it has/had neither. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point about MJ being very close and having competent editors, but do you not think those of us who understand the source problems, etc. that the Reagan page is having should try and explain them to those editors (that is, try to educate them)? Awadewit 02:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think two very new editors who don't understand the process or our comments to them, and have registered five Supports between them, are really going to write a featured article on Ronald Reagan? I'm trying to explain that, with about five dozen reviews listed at FAC, certain articles are not going to get attention, for good reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Newness does not preclude someone from writing an FA (my very first article, Mary Wollstonecraft, became a FA). I am asking a larger question - do the reviewers feel that it is a waste of their time to explain serious problems with articles, to teach, in essence? These editors are never going to improve if someone does not explain the fundamental flaws in their assumptions to them. Awadewit 02:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, just for you, I did a review. Now, you be the judge. IMO, editors who refuse a peer review, make back-to-back nominations to FAC when PR is recommended, and then record five Support votes aren't going to seriously work on an article. Anyway, I just wanted you to know it has nothing to do with the things you were wondering about on Michael Jordan. In other words, I spend most of time/effort on FAC trying to teach, but you've got to have an audience first, and the Reagan article hasn't got one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, often the hardest part of teaching is convincing people that they have something to learn. Thanks for the help. (By the way, I don't know if you went to Happyme22's user page, but it has a picture of Reagan on it. The caption reads "My hero.") Awadewit 03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I keep my framed certificate, signed by Reagan, in my back entry where visitors to my house can't miss it, and not because I think being class valedictorian is a big deal. Do you want me to change the dashes back? If you haven't been to the mainpage yet, someone will change them to the more conventional usage when it's there, since editors regularly go through and make those sorts of changes before articles go to the mainpage. I read part of your article while I was checking the structure; it seems quite excellent. I'm sorry I was traveling when it was under review; I don't usually miss reviews, but I've a lot of travel on my plate Jan–March. My very first article was also FA and received quite a nice review, but I know the research material quite well. Anyway, I don't have the sense our two Reagan editors are English majors or experts on the topic. In spite of being smart enough to choose their heroes well, I don't think they're yet ready to tackle Reagan, and I think a PR would be more productive at this point. Getting a convservative article featured on Wikipedia is much harder than getting liberal material approved, and I don't think they're yet prepared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just curious that's all; the policy seemed to allow for multiple styles. I don't really mind - I have no strong feelings on dashes (I only have strong feelings about changing Wollstonecraft's punctuation, as you saw). Actually, the Wollstonecraft page has been to the main page. I'm not sure what happened to the dashes during that crazy day. I was too busy trying to fix other things that "helpful" editors were changing (such as changing the word "apposition" to "opposition"). Like you, I wrote on what I know, so it was easy. I, too, wish the Reagan editors would take the article back to peer-review. I suggested that to Happyme22 on my talk page, but no deal as of yet. I was shocked when it disappeared off of the peer-review list after a day or two the last time. I don't know if you have noticed, but he/she has also put Nancy Reagan and some other Reagan-related articles up for peer review. Awadewit 03:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Right—those were the first tipoffs that we weren't dealing with serious nominators (that is, they also were all posted at FAC). The ballot stuffing was the next tipoff. If you don't like that dash style, I'll change them back, but it is the more common. Let me know, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. Awadewit 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK; congrats on the FA! Unwatching your page now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so at least we've now left a good, long starter list of the issues there; we'll see if anything improves a few months from now. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

William Monahan article under scrutiny at FAC

Awadewit, would you be interested in reviewing my article on screenwriter and man of letters William Monahan at WP:FAC? I noticed on your user page that you're a graduate student in English literature. This article has been criticized (rightly) for poor prose, but it's been significantly improved lately. I'd like to know what you think of the article's current state.-BillDeanCarter 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it. Awadewit 06:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied to all of your comments at FAC. I appreciate that you took the time to go over it. Let me know if you think my changes are satisfactory and if you have any more suggestions.-BillDeanCarter 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cicero

Thanks for your help on Cicero. It has benefited the article significantly. Brainmuncher 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll keep working on it later. Awadewit 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

More about Cicero

Thank you for the review! Nice that this article is progressing! I will go back to your remarks and questions tomorrow. Shortly: "Humanity" is derived from a Latin word,humanitas. But I think my translation is poor. Cicero was an early proponent of the philosophical movement that is called humanism in Swedish. Would "humanist" be better? Regards --Tellervo 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know. Humanism makes more sense, but I don't know enough about the history of humanism to answer this question. I was under the impression humanism arose during the Renaissance - am I wrong about that? Also, I still think that the sentence will have to be reworded. Perhaps include the Latin word Cicero coined and then the English translation. To say Cicero coined "humanist" just sounds wrong. Awadewit 06:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vindication, IP, etc.

Hi Awadewit, Just wanted to check in -- I'm sorry I rather dropped out of editing for a few weeks, especially after you so nicely gave me an award for my editing. <g> I had a death in the family so just haven't been focused. But, I wanted to let you know that I plan to start wikipedia-ing again this week. I'm not committing to anything but hopefully will be checking on stuff and available for talk pages etc. (And it's nice to hear of another scholar w/ copyright/IP interests -- please feel free to drop me a line en email sometime, lquilter at lquilter.net, for more personal introductions.) Best, lquilter 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I'm sure we'll be working together again. Awadewit 06:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Physics article rewrite

I was reading the chemistry FAC and noticed your comments on physics, so I thought I'd point out the (slow, but ongoing) effort to rewrite that article at Physics/wip if you're interested in keeping an eye on, or participating in, its development. Opabinia regalis 05:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I think that the article as it stands could do with some copyediting - "the job of physics"? If you want me to work on that aspect of it or comment on its general intelligibility to a non-scientist, I could do so. See Cicero for some of my recent copyediting work. I should mention that in the Cicero article I did change some information, but only because I know a little something about Cicero. I would not change anything in the physics article since I am not a physicist. Awadewit 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really only tangentially involved in the rewrite effort, and I'm not sure it's far along enough to merit a copyedit yet. To be honest, I'm hoping to get the poor thing some outside exposure, as the rewrite has been going on for six months and just gets intermittent little picky wording tweaks and the occasional good idea on the talk page that takes weeks to implement. But if you're running short of articles to review or anything, I'll probably put natural selection up for peer review sometime soon ;) There's another one that's been in a good-but-not-perfect state for a long time and mostly just gets picked and poked at every so often by the same few people. Opabinia regalis 06:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll just do a general review of Physics/wip, then. Drop me a line when you put up natural selection in case I miss it. Awadewit 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Natural selection will probably be this weekend. Opabinia regalis 03:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments on the physics rewrite. Natural selection is now up for peer review here if you get a chance to take a look. Opabinia regalis 03:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Credentials are useless

I have replied to your posting at Wikipedia talk:Credentials are useless. I apologise if you felt the essay had an insulting tone towards people with degrees; it wasn't intended to come over that way. Please read my reply for further explanation of my viewpoint. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to you as well. I have a feeling that your essay was intended to come off exactly that way, which is fine; it has rhetorical power. But understand that such provocative statements provoke debate. See title of essay: Credentials are useless as evidence. Awadewit 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jordan FAC

The Michael Jordan FAC has been re-listed (which was probably a good idea). Thought you'd like to know, here's a quick link. Quadzilla99 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I forgot who you were, I was notifying everyone who voted. Still if you want to vote or comment feel free, It's now at the top of the FAC page. Quadzilla99 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Irish phonology

Hi, I've done some work on Irish phonology to make it somewhat more layman-accessible. Please take a look when you have time and then leave a note at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irish phonology to say what you think. Thanks! —Angr 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for alerting me. Awadewit 07:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorrows of Young Werther

Thank you very much for your peer review. Most of my information comes from W.H. Auden's Foreword to one of the translations, and I was wondering if you would know the proper way to cite it. Millancad 21:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That is not the best source to use because Auden was a writer and not a scholar. Here is the page dealing with wikipedia citations: WP:CITE. I tend to find it confusing, though. It might be better for you to adopt MLA-style or Chicago-style. Then you can easily look up how to reference a book introduction on the web using those styles. There are also books you can purchase on citation, such as the MLA Handbook, that will illustrate every possible citation that you will ever need. Awadewit 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Title of "Credentials are useless"

Further to your comments at Wikipedia talk:Credentials are useless, I just wanted to clarify that I didn't come up with the title - the essay was started as a single paragraph by User:WikiLeon. I expanded it and added some of my own views. Some other users support moving the title to "Credentials are irrelevant", and I would be amenable to that solution. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That title sounds less inflammatory to me but I still don't agree with its implications. By the way, I do agree with the other posters that it is highly unlikely that a whole rash of professors are suddenly going to start demanding admin privileges based on their degrees. Practically speaking, they don't want another job to do. They are very busy people. Awadewit 11:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now moved the title, and replied to your comments on the talk page. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Physics/wip

Hi. I'm justing writing here to let you know that I will not, and perhaps nobody will, explicitly respond to all the comments that you made because a lot of editing still needs to be done and we might just not be concentrating on that section yet. For the sake of courtesy, I am just letting you know that I have read all the comments that you made and I agree with all of them. When I do get to take a look at the section of the article in question, I'll try to address the points that you made. I, and perhaps everyone else too, will be quite busy for a while, so progress might be slightly slow for a while; but your input, especially as a non-physicist, is greatly appreciated. Krea 02:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I was asked to look at the article by Opabinia regalis specifically, I think, because I am a non-scientist but a well-educated person interested in science. I'll watch the article and comment periodically. If you want my help with the writing at any point, drop me a line. Awadewit 06:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's very generous of you. I'd like to return the compliment...er, if you'd like any help with theoretical physics... Krea 01:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)