User talk:Scribblingwoman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

N.B.: To avoid whiplash, if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. Unless you request otherwise, of course.

Please click here to leave a new message for me


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)

[edit] Deletion of comment

Hi, that very thing has happened to me before as well. No idea why.. did you re-add it? If not I will. I'll check. Thx. Keefer | Talk 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yours (and another persons on a completely unrelated topic), both of which were mysteriously and inexplicably deleted with that edit of mine, have now been re-added. I think I must be a jinx on the page or something. Thx. --Keefer | Talk 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I was worried: I was perhaps a little snippy, but didn't think I was that rude! ;-* — scribblingwoman 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women screenwriters

Thanks for the message. I must admit the nomination came from the point of view of someone who didn't want to see the screenwriters category carved into genders. However, once I'd seen past my own nose, I realised that the category was subdivided by nationality anyway and that as long as all of the women screenwriters were either still represented in the main cat, or were in nationality cats, there was no problem. The rubbish thing about wisdom is that you frequently gain it by unwittingly making an arse of yourself! Never mind, I'd rather do a u-turn and look a little foolish than dig in my heels and look a total jerk. I'm sorry that someone else seems to have followed suit and nominated a similar category, hopefully they will also realise it's a mistake. I have tried to make amends by adding sortkeys to all of the occupants of the women screenwriters category. Nearly all of the entries were unsorted. Mallanox 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't look in the least bit foolish. On the contrary. What you did exemplifies the best aspects of working collaboratively. ([thump!] Oops, sorry; that was the sound of me falling off my high horse.) — scribblingwoman 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The best thing about a high horse is that you can be on it indoors without fear that it will make a mess! Mallanox 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wollstonecraft's Original Stories

I'm glad "women writers" survived! I was wondering if you had time to peer-review Original Stories from Real Life. It hasn't garnered much interest at peer review yet. It's not long. I would appreciate any thoughts you might have. Awadewit 02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Women writers has survived but the sub-categories are already being chipped away at!
I'll be happy to look at it. — scribblingwoman 12:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Women television writers

You seem to have taken an interest in the gendered categories debates. I tend to stay away from wikipedia's internal politics but I'm guessing it's bad form for someone who nominates a category for deletion, partly on the grounds that the category is supposedly underpopulated, to edit an article to depopulate that category, especially when it's an article which that editor has never shown an interest in before, so I thought I'd draw your attention to it in case it becomes an issue later. Random Passer-by (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That does seem bad form. Thank you for letting me know. — scribblingwoman 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You may be intersted that I have challenged Radiant's closure of this CFD: see User talk:Radiant!#Closure_of_CFD_on_Category:Women_television_writers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Novels by women

Scribblingwoman, thank you for your efforts to add the necessary categories around wikipedia for studying women writers. I have been trying to add some of my own when I come accross the need. Do you know, is there one similar to "Novels by women"? Thanks. Awadewit 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is Category:Women novelists, but that would encompass the writers, not the works. There is Category:Works by women writers but it is very sparsely populated as of yet. I would suggest using Category:Works by women writers until we get a sense of how many articles are out there on individual texts. If and when we need to, we could subcategorize. What do you think? — scribblingwoman 16:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That is fine with me. I just saw "works" and thought maybe it was being used as a catchall for texts that are hard to place generically. Awadewit 16:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Inchbald's Page

I see you are very invovled in the enrty on Elizabeth Inchbald, and I am wondering if she in fact wrote the play "Polygamy." I have found various sites [1] [2] which state that "The Mogul's Tale" was her first work, and have not found any metnion "Polygamy" at all, excluding websites that just copy Wikipedia. However, I have not checked print sources as of yet. I have not erased "Polygamy" because it must have come from somewhere, and my search may have simply missed it. To sum up, erase or not? Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.71.99 (talk • contribs)

That's very odd; I can't find it, but I worked on the article a little while ago. I do remember cobbling the list of plays together from various sources. I will have to go back and look more carefully, but for the time being I will remove the title from the list until I can verify it. Thanks for pointing this out. — scribblingwoman 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Woman Writers of Great Britain and Europe edited by Katarina Wilson (1997) "The Mogul's Tale" is her first play which sold for 100 guineas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.162.71.99 (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
This can't be good: hallucinating at such a (relatively) young age! When I have some time I will try to retrace my steps and find out where that came from. — scribblingwoman 10:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

It would appear the issue is that some people are approaching this issue from the side of the categories, whereas other people are looking from the side of the articles.

For instance, if we take a look at J. K. Rowling (I would have picked Helene Nolthenius or Tessa de Loo except that we don't seem to have an article on them), the category list shows that she's an English children's writer, fantasy writer, and novelist, who went to two univeristies and won several awards. One might say that "fantasy writer" and "novelist" is a somewhat redundant.

Now consider - would her article be improved if the category list would also say that she's a woman children's writer, woman fantasy writer, woman novelist, alumna of two universities, and woman award winner. Or would this amount to doubling the size of the (already lengthy) category list, to point out multiple times that she's a woman, which should be obvious from the first line of the article.

The more categories an article has, the harder it becomes to find one in particular. That is why some people object to such categories, and that is also why we frequently employ lists as a method for conveniently locating articles with a certain characteristic. >Radiant< 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of my frustration with all these discussions is the fact that so many participants are focusing on the present state of things in the West, whereas I, coming from 18thc lit., am much more conscious of the history of literature. Children's lit. is an excellent example because for a very long time it was dominated by women writers. So yes, I think that categorizing Rowling by gender is useful, from certain perspectives. And I know I haven't been here too very long (five months or so) and I know there are different "camps" on the best ways to organize the materials here, but I just don't understand the strong worry some people have against the proliferation of categories. Until we can do more effective searches, it seems to me that we need them. There is a huge shift in academic studies towards interdisciplinarity, and more and more people are coming to topics from unconventional perspectives. We need to facilitate that, I believe.
I appreciate your dropping by here since it seems I irritated you, over on your talk page. I wasn't trying to be obnoxious; saying someone has opinions is not a bad thing, in my book. One could certainly extrapolate my opinions on some issues from my edits, never mind what I say on talk pages. As long as those opinions are contained within the broader boundaries of Wiki policy, that is all we can hope for, I think. I know this may be an unpopular opinion with some, but this idea of impartiality is misapplied: the encyclopedia can do its best to be balanced and impartial, and it should. But individual editors are people, and people have points of view. Those points of view are less of a problem when they are acknowledged.
Again, I'm glad you stopped over! — scribblingwoman 13:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, no problem :) In addition to the above I should point out that the issue isn't limited to gender. You think categorizing Rowling by gender is useful - now would you say her race is important? Or sexuality? Or religion? Just like some people think women should be categorized separately, other people think the same of homosexuals, or Catholics, or African Americans. So, would it help to put Rowling into "Christian children's writers" as well? What about "Christian women fantasy writers"?
  • Suppose we find a poet who is a black protestant lesbian - do we put her with "Women poets"? "GLBT poets"? "African American poets"? "Protestant women poets"? "GLBT African American poets"? All of the above? This isn't really far fetched considering that everybody has gender and race, and quite a lot of celebs are active in religion and/or sexual orientation. If you do the math, we can hardly categorize them by every cross section. Wherever we draw the line, there's going to be somebody that doesn't like it. So for many of the people that disagree with you on this issue, it is not an issue of gender but an issue of avoiding too many and confusing categories. >Radiant< 13:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Radiant, I do wish that you would re-read WP:CATGRS, because it is very thoughtful on these issues, and does actually provide answers to those questions by providing a test of whether the intersection is an encyclopedically meaningful subject of study, which is defined as whether a substantive head article can be written on the subject. So in response to your question about the "black protestant lesbian" poet, the question is simply which of those attributes are relevant to her work and which of the intersections is the subject of meaningful head article. At a guess, I suspect hat (for example) "black lesbian poetry" may meet that test, but "black protestant poetry" may not.
      However, the problem that repeatedly arises here is that there is a small but vociferous group of participants at CFD who insist that gender is not and cannot ever be a defining atttribute of anyone's work, many of whom repeatedly and explicitly insist that the relevant guideline should be ignored. The result is that nearly every gendered category is unstable, and effort is constantly diverted away from organising gendered categories usefully into defending their existence. Some of the discussions are simply circular: people object to Category: Women writers being too large, so it is sub-categorised, and then when it is sub-categorised each sub-category goes through the same challenge process for creating too many sub-cats. Many of these problems could be resolved if the software allowed us to create dynamic intersection categories (e.g. Women+LGBT+black+disabled+African+poet), but since we don't have that, a certain amount of category clutter is inevitable unless we exclude some attributes. However, it's wrong to assume that gendered categories are a major cause of clutter; a quick comparison, for example for Emmylou Harris and her mentor Gram Parsons shows similar number of categories despite the former being in gendered categs.
      So I'm sorry, but I think you are fundamentally wrong to say that this is not an issue of gender: it is gendered categories which are the targets of repeated CFDs, in each case with the same argument that (contrary to guidelines) we do not classify by gender. The issue is not that anyone wants category clutter, but that some editors insist that gender is always either irrelevant, or that it is the least relevant attribute. In the case of writers, that is often demonstrably incorrect: for example Dervla Murphy and Freya Stark are both much more notable as Women travel writers than as Irish and British people, but the category which is at risk of being removed from them is their gender rather than their nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm aware of that guideline (as I recall, I started it over a similar debate more than a year ago). The point is that, in addition to the above, there's also a small but vociferous group who insist that gender/race/sexuality/religion is in each and every case a defining attribute of anyone's work. It's one of those dynamic tensions that we're stuck with. Could you not imagine a vocal Christian user who believes that it's irrelevant that said "black lesbian poet" is a lesbian, but that it's vital to her life and upbringing that she's a protestant? And a similarly vocal LGBT rights person who thinks the exact opposite? It would be far too easy if it were objectively definable.
      • The issue of "Women writers" being too large a cat means to some people that it should be subcategorized; to other people it means that since roughly 50% of writers are female, it's pointless to split "writers" in half like that. Again, there's something to be said for either.
      • Some argue that gender is never relevant, others argue that it always is. Incidentally, "always/never" people are probably rarer than you think; most people draw the line somewhere in the middle and argue with people who draw a similar line a bit more to the side. And also, to some, this is about gender, to others it's about clutter. Indeed, it complicates the issue that people are not agreed on what the issue is about :)
      • Indeed, software intersections would resolve this and half a dozen similar issues. In fact, I wrote some MediaWiki code to actually perform intersections. It works fine, except that we cannot at the moment use it because it's a performance hazard (specifically, calculating the intersection of two categories that (1) are large and (2) don't overlap). >Radiant< 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Gosh, I hope that the technical problems get resolved! Think how such software would empty out CFD discussions. Re. gender: as I've said before, I don't think it matters what anyone thinks. What matters is that "women writers" and all its myriad subcategories exist in the outside world, and so a certain sub-class of researchers would expect to find it here. — scribblingwoman 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] women writers etc.

hey scribblingwoman - just wanted to say great work on all these categories, and in resurrecting them. the category:women writers resurrection caught me at a bit of a bad time so i couldn't participate, but thank god it's back -- it's unbelievable the kneejerk reactions people have to these issues. (i'm still fuming over "category:african american scientists" and will bring that one up for review when i get a change.) --lquilter 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I just wish there was a way to protect categories the way we can protect articles. — scribblingwoman 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review of Category:Women television writers

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Women_television_writers. Having nominated the category for deletion review, I am notifying all those who participated in the original CFD, plus the closing admin and the independent reviewer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Touching base

Wow, you've been busy! Eh Elle Dee 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Not on the things I should have been busy on. So, are you jumping back in? — scribblingwoman 13:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Slooowly. I have big ideas, but less than no time. Eh Elle Dee 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women screenwriters

Hi,

By all means, use the restored category. My reference was to a bipartisan consensus -- from both sides of the debate -- that going about decision-making piecemeal, one category at a time through CfD, is undesirable. Were it not for that general agreement, DRV procedure would require me to relist the category at CfD upon DRV closure; that's why I made a point of it, specifically.

As for where the discussion now is, I believe Radiant made reference to the talk page of Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, but you are also welcome to begin a centralized discussion or RfC of your own, if you wish. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. No, I have no desire for more discussion, unless people keeping trying to delete categories in which case I suppose we will have to. But it has literally been weeks now of rehashing the same arguments, and I bet I'm not the only one who wants a break! Thanks again, — scribblingwoman 19:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know nom

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, The Unsex'd Females, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on May 7 where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, nadav 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! It's an honour even to be nominated. I would like to thank my agent, and … sorry, wrong speech. But really, thanks. — scribblingwoman 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I was more than happy to do it. As a new page patroller, most of what I find is either two line stubs or absurd hoaxes (the latest one was a bio on Laura shaffer aka Beaver Wind, a 19th century Indian shot by drunken hunters who mistook her for a walking dolphin). It was a very pleasant surprise to find a such a well-written, fascinating piece instead. I hope the hook I wrote for it was ok since I wasn't sure how to balance description of the poem with the need to hook the reader with the the botany factoid. nadav 05:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeared on the main page recently.

Updated DYK query On 11 May 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Unsex'd Females, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

nadav 20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is so cool! Thank you for nominating the article. — scribblingwoman 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A belated thanks

For your good & helpful comments on the École Polytechnique massacre FA. I've taken a spin through some of your contribs and I've very impressed with your work. Your main page DYK is a great article about something I never had a notion existed. Exactly the sort of thing I love about Wikipedia. -- good work! Dina 00:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. And thanks for the kind words. I'm Canadian as well and Dec. 6 is an important date. I'm so glad there is such a great article on it. — scribblingwoman 12:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] debate of interest

As I anticipate that you may write pages on authors in the future, I feel that a current debate over bibliographies might be of interest to you here. There has been an effort recently to delete and merge lists of works by authors at AfD. Awadewit Talk 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poem

Do you know an easily accessible version of William King's "Affectation of the Learned Lady"? I thought it might be online, but I haven't been able to find it. I saw a reference to it in a paper I was reading and I thought you might know it, given your obvious interest in that sort of poetry. :) Awadewit Talk 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't know it, though it sounds like I should. Doesn't seem to be in any anthology to which I have access. I will keep my eyes open. — scribblingwoman 10:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth Colony

If you have some free time, Plymouth Colony could use a good peer review. The main editor and I have been around the bend a few times now and I've read the article several times now and copyedited it twice, I think, so someone else should step in. Awadewit Talk 05:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. — scribblingwoman 10:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Do not feel obligated to get involved in the "source war" that you will see at the peer review. In fact, it would probably be best not to! Awadewit Talk 11:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Age of Reason

When you return, might you consider reviewing The Age of Reason? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Works by women writers

Category:Works by women writers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion at cfd. You may want to weigh in. A Musing 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News
  • The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
  • A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
Member News

Image:LinkFA-star.png Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members
From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue
Complete To Do List

Assessment Progress
We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] WikiProject Literature proposal

Hey! Awadewit recommended you to me as someone who may be interested in the new Literature wikiproject. The proposal for the project is here. Please consider joining. Wrad 00:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==Women writers / female writers==

Hi. I've just noticed User:Matthew Proctor is changing all pages with 'women writers' in the title to 'female writers', changing categories similarly, on the grounds that women is not an adjective. This process is incomplete at the moment. I seem to recall there was some earlier discussion relevant to this which MP might not know of! Dsp13 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)