User talk:Scribblingwoman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you leave me a message I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise.


Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Scribblingwoman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Melchoir 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! scribblingwoman 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List

That UK list you've created is certainly monolithic and will be (is) quite useful. --Susiebowers 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still in process; there are many more names to add. It started as a chronological list but it got out of hand so I alphabetized it. I think it will be useful; I have often wished for such a thing. Any spare time, m'dear, you are most welcome to initiate articles for any of those many, many, names in red! scribblingwoman 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category tags

Hi, the dramatist and playwright tag is listed under Category:Theatre, therefore the connection with theatre is made. Articles are categorized under the most specific category that applies to them rather than the parent categories as well. Therefore many of the playwrights you have contributed on would fall only under English dramatists and playwrights rather than just dramatists and playwrights, theatre or drama. If you'd like to connect these articles with WikiProject Theatre, simply add the following template to the article's talk page: {{WikiProject Theatre}}. I hope this helps. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions and thank you for you marvelous contributions on female playwrights! Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English poetry

If you've got a bit of time, perhaps you could look at the article on English poetry. It is currently a Featured Article, but it has been proposed that it's feature article status be removed, in part because of the choppy style of the prose and in part because of the lack of references in the article. I've done a bit of work, but it needs much more to really be up to snuff. Sam 15:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sam. Time? Hah! Even so, I went over there to take a peak and ended up revising the short section on 18thc women poets. Will wander over again, no doubt, though I need to focus on making entries for my giant red list of women poets or someone will complain. Thank you for the invitation and the confidence that it implies. scribblingwoman 16:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - that's improved. I look forward to seeing that giant red list of women poets turn blue over time, and do check in periodically on it. Someday, when all the years are set up for the List of years in poetry project, I plan to add the dates of birth, death and major works of all these poets to the poetry timeline. Sam 17:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Canadian Poets

I made a page (stub) for Marilyn Dumont, I noticed you added her name to the Canadian poets list. I did that because red links get deleted there! --Susiebowers 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And sorry; I didn't mean to make you work. scribblingwoman 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Me? Work? hehe. --Susiebowers 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

I assert that I am the same as commons:User:scribblingwoman. scribblingwoman 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favor

I saw your username on the WikiGender Studies Project and I thought perhaps you might have an interest in literature (given the reference). I cannot tell you how happy I was to discover on your userpage that you are interested in 18th-century literature. You are one of the first people that I have found on wikipedia who knows more than a smattering about the period. I was wondering if you might take a look at my article on A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. VRW, as I'm sure you know, is a difficult text to write on and I've been having some difficulty trying to summarize its main themes in a coherent manner. I would, of course, be willing to help you out in return whenever you needed it. Awadewit 19:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writers

Hi there! I respect your arguments, but judged from the CFD debate most people don't really agree with those. In general we tend to treat both sexes as equal, and as such we don't subdivide profession categories into their male and female counterparts (nor into black-and-white, or straight-and-gay). That is not to say we don't cover women's history in writing (because we do, of course) and a category of writers active in women's rights would be interesting. >Radiant< 10:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I see your point, but would like to say that the discussion was not that extensive, nor did anyone have the chance to make the arguments that I am making in any detail, so I don't think we can assume that people don't agree with them as they didn't hear them. I think these sorts of issues sometimes get ticklish because people are nervous about making distinctions because such distinctions may be seen as discriminatory, and so they try to minimize the very real differences between people instead. I'd also say that there is a huge difference between equal in the sense of equally deserving fairness and respect, and equal in the sense of having the same experience. It seems to me inarguable that different groups -- women, men, blacks, caucasians, homosexuals, heterosexuals, and countless others -- have historically, and as groups not necessarily as individuals, had different experiences than each other. And those experiences are reflected in different ways: for the purposes of this discussion, in literary production. Anyway, I am not even convinced there needs to be agreement on this, though the discussion is interesting, for the basic fact remains that women's literature already exists as a long-standing sub-category of literature, if we follow the lead of the people most concerned: the writers, the critics, the publishers, the scholars, and the readers. (And the same situation exists for African-American literature, for lesbian literature, and many, many others). Heck, the Library of Congress recognizes women's writing as a category. Isn't it our job here to represent what exists to the best of our abilities? If that is the case, then "women's writing" should surely be reinstated as a category. scribblingwoman 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response! I'm not convinced, though, by the argument that we need to prune categories, when many, many obscure categories exist yet one that seems so basic has been removed. And Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality clearly states that

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid.

"Women writers" is "a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" and a head article has been initiated. When the Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality article says, "These discussions occasionally pop up on WP:CFD and tend to be controversial, and wildly varying in their outcome," they sure had it right! scribblingwoman 10:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We need to prune precisely because many, many obscure categories exist; we tend to look at the most prominent ones first. At any rate, yes, you do have a good point, but so do the people who disagree with you (which doesn't include myself, I was just the closer there) and it appears there is a consensus for the latter. This is akin to those perennial issues of "it's sexist to ignore the role of woman writers" vs. "it's sexist to treat woman writers differently from man writers". I would suggest you bring this matter up on deletion review so that more people than the two of us can discuss it. >Radiant< 12:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Scribblingwoman, please let me know when this discussion gets initiated. Obviously, this is simply a bizarre decision, disregarding decades of scholarship to do away with a category of immense utility. Sam 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Misconceptions such as what you just said are precisely why these discussions get so controversial. Nobody is throwing away any amount of scholarship, we still cover the entire subject in wide detail. Making appeals to emotion is not helpful. >Radiant< 13:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Now, now, there were no misconceptions - that's a mischaracterization I said "disregarding decades of scholarship to do away with a category" - the category (representing the work of many editors) was thrown out and information was deleted, and there are decades of scholarship focused on women writers, none of which was discussed in the process. Part of the issue I see is that the CFD discussion did not have the benefit of those who developed and used the category. There was a paucity and one-sidedness of reasoning in the discussion that resulted. But some good comes of it: the article written primarily by Scribblingwoman is a good addition. As to covering the subject in detail, it is, of course, a work in progress, as are all things wiki, and the category was an aide to that work in progress. Sam 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I trust your point is that the list is a good place to access much of the deleted information - but do we know that everything from the deleted category was merged into the list? It appears the category was deleted, not merged into the list. Also, I'd hoped we'd have this discussion on a more appropriate forum, but would like to let Scribblingwoman frame the case given all she's done on this - shall we hold off until she is able to do so? Best, Sam 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, my point is that there isn't any deleted information, because there's still that list (which, incidentally, can contain more bits of informatation, such as century and country of origin). The list is probably incomplete (then again, so was the cat), but that can be fixed by editing it. >Radiant< 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I just spot checked three women writers I knew were in the category (a contemporary writer, an early modern writer, and a medieval Islamic writer), and one, Al-Khansa, is not in that list. Indeed, a quick glance at the list tells me it was prepared by contributors with a strong Western focus, while I know the category was more broadly used. As I noted, there was information deleted, since the category was not merged into the list, but rather was deleted. In order to edit the list to add the deleted names we'd need access to the category, which, of course, has been deleted. Sam 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately due to the way Wikipedia software works, the content of a category cannot be retrieved once the category has been deleted. So undeleting the category is not going to help at all in fixing the list. If the list is western-focused, that could be remedied by adding to it. >Radiant< 08:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - that was the reason for the complaint about the deletion of the category without notice to any of those who had contributed to the category. I think there should be a notice process similar to that of the FAR/FARC process; while I understand there are minor categories that need to get cleaned up quickly, the deletion of a more significant category like this one should only come after input from the people who have made significant contributions. I will make such a suggestion on the CFD talk page.Sam 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I just want to comment on Radiant's earlier note above that This is akin to those perennial issues of "it's sexist to ignore the role of woman writers" vs. "it's sexist to treat woman writers differently from man writers" but I think that this is not an issue about sexism at all. To bring in sexism is not the intent in arguing that the category should exist. It was NOT sexist for the category to be removed and it wasn't sexist that the category existed. It was simply a hasty and uninformed oversight I believe. The category was being used to help organize information at Wikipedia based on an actual category that exists in literary and academic circles. The debate that I read after the fact -- which resulted in the deletion of the category -- did not take into account that "women writers" is a field of literary study. The people involved in the debate simply were not aware of that, but now they can be. This is a completely NPOV because there are so many references to external sources about the existence of such a field. It would be a shame if Wikipedia did not honour the scholarship of such a field by acknowledging it and having it available to its many readers who are interested in the study of literature.--Susiebowers 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I will post a request for reevaluation, as Radiant suggests. Probably not this evening, but in the next day or two. I will post it here when I do. If someone else wants to jump in sooner, feel free but please let me know. Thanks, Radiant, for the suggestion and the link. scribblingwoman 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Category has been submitted for review here: all constructive participation welcome! scribblingwoman 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe the debate at this review. Really, I cannot. I have been in some crazy debates, but this one takes the cake. It is just so obvious that since it is a category used by scholars that it should be included. This debate it a good example of the anti-intellectual bias at wikipedia. I'm sorry if I am becoming too strident, but I really cannot fathom the arguments being made over there. Scribblingwoman, I admire you for taking this on. Awadewit 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and right back at you. Though I have to say, if I had had a crystal ball I may have thought twice. Earlier this evening I read the article linked from your user page about bias in Wikipedia and it was just the ticket. But although much of the discussion has been disheartening, there are also a lot of reasonable folk around here. And I am certainly pleased to have made your acquaintance. scribblingwoman 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
And I yours. I will be taking a wikibreak for a conference in the next few days, so I'm afraid I won't be able to participate in the disucssion much anymore. Awadewit 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Enjoy the conference. scribblingwoman 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's back on CFD now. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Category:Women writers. I haven't commented yet, I'm thinking. But I thought you'd like a heads-up. — coelacan — 22:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still curious as to why you think that List of women writers is not sufficient and a category is needed as well. — coelacan — 17:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it needs to be a category because it reflects an important approach to literary studies that is not necessarily clear from simply having a list (though I work on that list and have initiated two smaller lists myself). Of course a lot of the necessary explanation can be provided in a head article, and as you know, one has been initiated. It now needs to be expanded and other articles need to be written for various subcategories. But the category, and its subcategories, are useful in and of themselves as navigational tools. One can glance through the (eye-glazingly long) list but groupings of writers do not necessarily jump out at one. The category page, on the other hand, lays out the field. Or at least, it has that potential.
I have to say, though, that this whole extended discussion has taken me aback. I am relatively new here and didn't anticipate the strongly held opinions, not on the subject matter, but on the mechanisms of Wikipedia itself. The discussion has betrayed, in my view, some discomfort with feminism and some anti-intellectualism, but a good proportion of the people against the category seem to be so for mainly structural reasons. I can appreciate that, certainly, though I don't agree in this case. It is such a central category, certainly in my own work, and I am finding it immensely frustrating that I and others seem to be having such difficulty in getting that across. I have appreciated all your comments; it is clear that you are really weighing the issues. scribblingwoman (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict as I sought to add my own two cents on this issue, but here's the two cents: I have worked on and sought to maintain a number of lists, and they are great for the amount of information one can put on it, the ability to effectively cross-reference and subcategorize, and the ability to cite sources. However, because they do not tie back into articles, absence a reference or a template, they are difficult to maintain and take a lot of work to do well. Lists tend to not reflect the information on Wikipedia as well as categories, and that is particularly true where large categories are at play. Likewise, lists in large, complex categories get very complicated: it is easy to put someone in multiple subcategories, but you get a highly redundant and unwieldy list when you do that. If you look at List of women writers you will see this already; similarly, if you look at the various lists for Poetry (go to the collection of templates at the bottom of the page), you'll see that coordinating lists is very difficult. Categories attract much more maintenance help, especially for new articles that a list-maker may not pick up, and tend to be much easier to use in areas like this, where there are a truly large number of articles to coallate, to get comprehensive coverage. They are also more useful where multiple categories (by nationality or period) can be useful in different situtations). The biggest downside to categories is that the tone and approach followed at CfD makes almost all categories inherantly unstable, and once deleted it is very hard to recover category information. I'd like to see some of that attitude change, so a truly major category like this one won't be deleted without notice to those using it. The outcome of this discussion may be important for that policy level concern. A Musing (formerly Sam) 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for your replies. Essentially the same thing I said at User talk:Lquilter/Archive 4#women psychologists is what I'm struggling with here. What we really need and soon is Wikipedia:Category intersection to resolve these issues entirely. I'll keep thinking about this particular category. — coelacan — 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Coelacan, I just popped over to the discussion to which you refer and in fact, I quite agree with you: ghettoization is a real danger. But I like lquilter's response. It's up to those of us who use the category to make sure that we do not inadvertently ghettoize writers by categorizing them narrowly. And we should make sure that any more general lists, articles, and categories are inclusive (oh no, another task!!). scribblingwoman (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] function of deletion sorting boards

WP:DSSG#Deletion review is just for listing links to specific ongoing deletion discussions, so I've moved your comment to WT:GS#policies and practices around gendered categories where more people will read it anyway. The other projects that use WP:DSSG may be reached at WT:SEX and WT:LGBT, you can comment there too if you like, although they are somewhat less related to gender, they all use WP:CATGRS. — coelacan — 21:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Coelacan! I sometimes feel like I'm walking around leaving little piles of debris that others kindly clear up. scribblingwoman (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Somebody's got to make work for the gnomes. =) And if you're every paralyzed with a "what the heck do I do with this" kind of question, remember the help desk. — coelacan — 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender Studies

The issue here isn't the content, but the tone, and neutral point of view. We shouldn't take a tone that implies Freud is a jackass, we need to let the reader realise that on their own. WilyD 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that he is a jackass. The sentence is about reactions to one of his ideas, not the idea itself. And the rest of the section goes on to list a group of feminist theorists who use psychoanalytic theory.— scribblingwoman 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly a lot better now than it was before. WilyD 03:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, yeah! This collaboration thing actually works. :-) — scribblingwoman 05:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women writers

Hi ! about the Women writers category : on the french WP, we got the same kind of problems some months ago with the Catégorie Femme artiste (= Category:Women in art), so i empathize with you :) When i saw that the women writers category was requested for deletion here, i was totally astonished, as Women studies are a far more popular subject in english-speaking culture than in France. (On the fr WP, nobody questions the Femme de lettres category, that is partly why the Femme artiste category was kept).

Good luck, and thanks for your efforts :) Pwet-pwet, from the Projet Femme

Merci! You may have noticed that the category has been reinstated. So we can rest easy. Until the next time! — scribblingwoman 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A billion congrats re Category:Women writers! With relief I can uncross my fingers & use them to type! Dsp13 19:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fingers, and toes, Dsp13. — scribblingwoman 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, congrats! I'm very glad it was reinstated. Now to populate all of those cats... María (habla conmigo) 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/r/User_talk%7EScribblingwoman_6a76.html"