Talk:Susanna Centlivre/Archive 1

Why roll so far back

1. The changes were amazingly jarring, where all paragraphs were turned into jabbing, stoccato, newspaper paragraphs of single sentences. That's some very bad style.
2. The changes introduced an intolerable number of typos.
3. The "neutrality" is absolutely not presented in the new version. Instead, a distinctly hagiographic tone was put in to replace the neutral tone. In fact, there were many changes that I would dispute in the strongest terms, and yet there were no references for any of those changes (The Nine Muses left on Dryden's grave? what? that is meaningful how?). A lot of the language introduced seemed to come from an antique source, but no sources were offered.
4. The woman was a political actress, political author, and highly engaged Whig, and all of this emphasis on her as lady poet misses her own point, as well as the primary point contemporaries noticed.

Overall, these were not improvements. Before doing something that drastic, please, please, please use the talk page. Geogre 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

The changes were intended to separate Centlivre's public and private lives, as is standard in most of the other articles on prominent literary figures. It appears that much of the information on the current incarnation of this page has been (poorly) cribbed from the DNB - for example, Giles Jacob is not "highly suspect"; his account is one of two differing versions of Centlivre's life. The inclusion of Abel Boyer retains the notion that Jacob's account may not be entirely truthful by presenting an alternate version of it rather than an ad hominem attack. Centlivre was one of the most popular playwrights of her era and for the next 150 years, so I hardly feel that I am remiss to emphasize her considerable literary merits, and "The Nine Muses" is an important relic of eighteenth-century women's writing, an area of study in which Centlivre is an important figure.

Centlivre's political involvement was retained and separated from her (considerable) literary output so that it would not be lost to readers perusing what was previously a rather dense article. It's unfortunate that biases against so-called "lady poets" prevent the inclusion of this material at all. The "antique language" is merely an attempt to remove what appear to be purely decorative commas from the article.

The "stoccato" (I'm assuming that you mean staccato?) paragraphs were, once again, an effort to make the article more readable and less dense. If there were typos (which I've been working on eliminating), why could you not change them, rather than undoing work that made this less like an essay and more like an encyclopedia entry?

Eh Elle Dee 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• First, if you don't think that Giles Jacob is highly suspect, then I invite you to go believing Poetical Register and its amazing stories about Aphra Behn's affair with the slave Oroonoko, its mistaken dates of birth, its hilarious accounts of family origins, etc. Then again, if you think that getting the information from the author (some of the time) is definitive, then good luck on that scholarship. Jacob has been an enormous source of error in 18th century biography.
• Second, the original mentioned The Nine Muses but mentioned it as a publication. The Romantic leaving at Dryden's tomb is lachrymose and irrelevant. Do you believe that she was in that collection because of her commitment to Roman Catholicism and Jacobitism, or was it an effort to make a career.
• Third, I am pleased for other sources to be included, but, like this "cribbed" version, they should cite the sources.
• Fourth, her considerable merits were not denied. They were not lauded, because it is not our job to tell readers how good they are.
• Fifth, I would dispute that she was "most popular," although being "one of" them would simply number her among anyone who worked at the theater. Is Robert Wilks one of the most popular playwrights of the age? What about John Rich (producer)? Those who worked at Drury Lane got their plays on.
• There is no distinction between professional and political life. If you want to disagree with the Pope attack, you cannot then try to separate the political from the professional, because I doubt that Pope cared about her personally. I have an extreme aversion to "lady poet" hagiography and people lowering their intellectual rigor to roll in "transgressive" prose that is disconnected from the facts of history and literary achievement. Most of those who go that way simply haven't read enough. They find a single author and think her the sun and moon, never realizing how common female authors were, how unremarkable it was, and how readily 1720's (not 1760's) figures accepted female authors.
• As for destroying work, I actually saw no additions, and I rolled back to a version by you. I did not go back to a version that I had anything to do with, but single sentence paragraphs are for Hi-Lites magazine, not encyclopedias, and dusty memorials of leaving tributes on Dryden's grave is for Leslie Stephens. Geogre 16:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your aggression is certainly off-putting to anyone who might wish to "jump in and be bold" as Wikipedia encourages new readers to do. The information on The Nine Muses is included because, until recently, an article on the volume did not exist. Is there something wrong with providing historical context?

Have you read "The Female Wits"? It certainly indicates that the difficulties faced by female playwrights were certainly compounded by their gender. I am not engaging in hagiography; I am simply attempting to indicate that Centlivre's gender influenced her contemporary reception. Unfortunately, it appears that those who still wish to add the exceptionally offensive qualifier "lady" to any female artist still exist. I left all of the information on Centlivre's political and professional lives intact and united the two in the Contemporary Reception section.

I assume that your reference to those who "lower their intellectual rigor" is directed at me. I assure you that this is not the case. A refusal to admit that certain outdated academic perspectives are not the be-all and end-all of eighteenth-century scholarship is more troubling to me. Is it not unethical for an Administrator to insult the intellect of others?

I hardly think that The Busybody (have you read it, by the way? It's wonderful) is a political play in the same sense that some of Centlivre's other works may have been, hence the division.

If your main issue was with the "single-sentence paragraphs", why did you not edit them?

I will be re-adding the section headings in the near future. You may, of course, feel free to remove them if you wish, but why not simply re-work the content to your liking?

As for Jacobs, to say that he is "highly suspect" without context is misleading, hence why, as I suggested in my earlier comments, that the inclusion of Boyer's alternate version is useful.

The DNB itself affirms Centlivre's popularity. One needs only to look at the amazing frequency with which her plays were performed after her life and compare this to the same of other playwrights to come to the same conclusion.

I did not "crib" my information - please read my earlier comments more carefully. I simply checked the source cited at the bottom of the article, read it, and added the information that had been omitted. I invite you to do the same. Eh Elle Dee 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You have all but accused me of misogyny and considered a 2004 source "outdated," so I don't think "aggression" is a charge I need to answer in the face of such passive aggression. Giles Jacob is someone you should read. Yes, I have read the books you mention. The Female Wits overstates its case considerably, and my critique is of "lady poets" -- meaning the people who divide the world into a transhistorical notion of gender. In other words, it is a criticism of your approach and not the figures themselves. Naive feminist readings of female authors is tiresome. With everything that has been written, it amazes me that people are still refusing to read their history and realize that there is no absolute about gender, no women's movement of 1710. 1680-1720 is a time of relatively low barriers to female authorship, while 50 years later the barriers would be much higher. The anarchy of the the Restoration in literature meant that the normal rules and definitions were weak.

I have never denied that she was popular, but to think that popularity means either significance or merit does not follow. She has merit. She is an occasionally great playwright. She was not "attacked" as much as "answered," and it had bumpkiss to do with her sex.

Centlivre thought that her sex colored her reception. Such was already stated in the article. The truth of it is not for us to know without further research. My own view, not stated in the article, is that it both harmed and helped her reception, that she used it to her advantage and that it became her weakness, too. Because she made "written by member of the fair sex" a frontispiece issue, she put her sexuality and its implicit difference into play and made it part of the public persona. Where she had an extremely difficult time for being a woman was with the triumvirate of Drury Lane managers. Cibber and Doggett and Wilks were anti-woman. That, however, is poorly attested, because Jacob isn't interested and Cibber is mum.

My objection is to the very innocent reading, the black and white, boys vs. girls reading of any female author of the early 18th century. It just isn't so simple, especially among women who enter the public sphere. Even where it seems to be simple, as with Sarah Scott, it's probably really a case of child abuse.

The headers didn't bug me as much as the ... other things. I have no intention of insulting you. I welcome additions, but let's give our readers credit with being able to manage a sentence of more than twelve words. Geogre 19:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. I don't hold a "boys vs. girls" mentality, which is what I was referring to as "outdated". Gender is, as you suggest in your comments, an undeniable aspect of human experience. I have done much reading on Centlivre and do not disagree with your comments on Cibber and Wilks. I am not suggesting that Centlivre was a feminist, and I did not include any such ahistorical perspective in the article. Whether or not she is a proto-feminist is another matter, but perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion. I have read Jacobs, but please allow me to reiterate the fact that I think an inclusion of Boyer's writing on Centlivre might lend nuance to the early biographical information presented here. I'm sorry that you find me "naive" and "tiresome", but if the eighteenth-century playwright who remained the most popular of her era up to 150 years after her death isn't significant, who is? All of the information in the "handaxe version" can be found in the DNB. Eh Elle Dee 00:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Eh Ell Dee's rereading of this wikipedia entry represents a nuanced approach to gender issues in the eighteenth century, and above all, it gives the facts of Centlivre's life in clear and neutral terms. Comparing the facts of her life with the edition of Finberg's Eighteenth Century Women Dramatists shows me that Eh Ell Dee has in no way violated wikipedia's guidelines on the topic.

Furthermore, I think the idea of suggesting her reading to be in some way naive is insulting.

And the article was easier to read, more clear, and more concise with the headers in place. The argument of "bad style" is unfounded, in my opinion.

--Brenna.gray 18:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, thank you for your input, new users, but bad style it is to go with choppy paragraphs, short sentences, and overlinking. In violation of Wikipedia guidelines it is to ask to include a source but not to cite it. As for the nuance, there was none in the added material, whatever might lie in the author herself. Sexual politics in the late Restoration are indeterminate, and the door is closing on women and yet remains open. As for "most popular for 150 years," I thoroughly disagree with that, and I want a citation for such a fact. She might be "most popular female playwright of the 18th century plays" for that time (and thereby excluding Behn), but she's nowhere like the most popular playwright. The most popular of "her era" can be chopped very finely. In the 1710's, there weren't very many playwrights whose plays lasted. By the 20's, we have Gay and Henry Carey. By the 30's, we have Fielding. In the 90's, there weren't very many (Rowe, maybe), so that's a highly relative statement.
• As for transhistoricism, anyone who wants Centlivre to be fighting the battles of the 1950's is projecting. She was coming out of desperate poverty and trying to live, and she was also a woman of very strongly anti-aristocratic views. Like I said, headings didn't bother me. Laying a collection of verse on Dryden's tomb did. Please add information from all other contemporary sources, but cite it fully. That's all. Geogre 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to:

"As for "most popular for 150 years," I thoroughly disagree with that, and I want a citation for such a fact. She might be "most popular female playwright of the 18th century plays" for that time (and thereby excluding Behn), but she's nowhere like the most popular playwright."

I respond with this quote, from Finberg's Eighteenth Century Women Dramatists:

"By the end of the nineteenth century, only four non-Shakespearian comedies written before 1750 were regularly produced on the British stage, and two of them, The Busybody andThe Wonder: A Woman Keeps a Secret, were by Centlivre." p. xvii, Introduction ' Which is fundamentally important in illustrating her popularity AND influence, as she was part of the dominant entertainment for a hundred and fifty years.

Furthermore, from the same source, "her comedies were favourite choices for actors' benefits throughout the century, and were chosen by both David Garrick and Kitty Clive for their farewell performances." p. xvii, Introduction, emphasis

She was not one of the most popular female playwrights, she was one of the most successful playwrights, regardless of gender, of the 18th century. --Brenna.gray 20:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Finberg's statement needs backup. Note the specification of comedies and the nebulous "regularly." I have not denied and would not deny that The Busybody and A Woman Keeps a Secret were regularly produced, but so were many other comedies before 1750, and to suggest that The Beggar's Opera was not "regularly" produced indicts either the honesty or scholarship of Finburg.
• Garrick is a good name to mention in this context, as he was a particular champion of The Busybody, and that endorsement did a great deal to ensure that it was popular. If we were to exclude him, how "regular" would the plays be? The question is somewhat irrelevant, of course, but to suggest that these two plays are of such staggering beauty that they put her in the first rank is not shown by the popularity of the performances.
• Those two plays, of all her vast, vast body of work, were popular, and Marplot is an enduring character. I do not have to denigrate her to want to suppress the hagiographic element. Honestly, though, I can't imagine anyone defining "comedy" in such a way that the operatic parodies were excluded, which apparently Finburg does. Further, we can add in the wretched pantomimes that Rich "wrote," and some of these were acted every single year for 60 years. Very, very suspect statements, there. Geogre 13:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you read the Dictionary of National Biography article on Centlivre. You don't appear to be grasping that absolutely every single piece of information added to the article is in that source, which was the basis for the article when I came to it. The Nine Muses was listed as an early publication and an appropriate description was given. I'm not sure why you find this inappropriate when the context and purpose of the works of male authors are routinely included in their articles.

As for transhistoricism, second-wave feminism is generally associated with the 1960s, not the 1950s. Although textual recovery began with Woolf, a mass academic movement toward it did not occur until later on - interestingly enough, also after the 1950s. Eh Elle Dee 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Gee. I wrote the article from scratch, and I based all of it on the DNB, so I'm not surprised that all the information in it comes from there. I have no objection to The Nine Muses, since I put the reference in in the first place. However, I avoided the Romantic nonsense of talking about its being laid on Dryden's grave, which is irrelevant. My objection was to that, not the mention. I am well aware of the history of feminism, thank you, and I believe you should read a bit more deeply. Geogre 13:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

Given that all of the information in the article is indeed in the source cited, is there any reason it can't be rolled back? Your criticism of the sentences (which, interestingly wavers between calling them too short and too long) can easily be remedied by consolidating the paragraphs under each heading into larger paragraphs.

I think I'll roll it back later today, given that ample evidence has been provided for its veracity. (Eh Elle Dee)

• You're not making sense. Veracity of what? What is currently missing that you think should be in? Can you specify? Have you still not realized that I rolled back to your version from the start? What I rolled back from is the choppy paragraphs and the attempt to segregate the political and personal. There are no statements of fact in dispute, so claiming that there is "veracity" is irrelevant. I can't tell if you're not reading or not understanding what I've been saying. I hope it's the former. Geogre 13:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't "my version" - it's a slightly copy-edited version of an earlier article. Are you satisfied that Centlivre is, in fact, a significant playwright? You say that "there are no statements of fact in dispute", but you have, in fact, been disputing her significance, the relevance of "The Nine Muses", and the inclusion of Abel Boyer's perspective. If you wrote the article from scratch, I find it interesting that you left out such pertinent information. I stand by my opinion that the qualifier "highly suspect" as applied to Jacob should be more fully explained. You appear to be changing your position slightly every time you respond here. Why is that?

Also, the changes further emphasized Centlivre's political involvement, rather than detracting from it. Can you outline any concerns you have that may not have been addressed?

• Well, "slightly copy edited" or not, it was your copy editing. From that point on, things began to go downhill, with typos, choppy sentences, mangled paragraphs, and an intent, which you aver, above, to try to keep her politics away from her plays, a thing not done for male playwrights (as what is done for one must be done for the other to ensure equality that can be had no other way). Again, that her first publication was in The Nine Muses (a lousy volume, by the way) was always there, but I did not like a modification of that statement you had made: that they laid the volume on Dryden's grave. Such a detail obfuscates and trivializes the author.
• You again confuse wishing to cut down on laudatory language with denigrating the author. I don't think I would have spent any time or bothered to write about her, if I thought she was inconsequential.
• What I ask is that you discuss major changes that you'd like to make on the talk page. That's only fair. If you insist on Hi-Lites style paragraphing, then I suppose we will have to get a larger set of opinions on which is better. Geogre 16:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The intent was not to "separate her politics from her plays" - it was to indicate which plays are specifically political. I'm sure different readers will come to the article for different reasons; why not make it easier for them to find the information they need? Typos were edited out in subsequent versions after the original major change and were still being removed.

Why not describe WHAT "The Nine Muses" was for readers who might not know? I started the article on "The Nine Muses", but I did so after I had planned my changes to Centlivre. Your reference to Hi-Lites magazine is insulting - do you really expect civil discourse after such an attack? As I've asked before, if you have an issue with the paragraphing, why not consolidate the evenly spaced, and therefore, in my mind, more readable sentences into single paragraphs under each heading.

Indicating Centlivre's significance it not laudatory; it is a statement of fact. I notice you haven't mentioned Boyer and Jacobs again - can I assume that you agree Boyer's perspective might be worth including, as it also existed?

You seem to be striking out at feminist criticism and then pulling your arguments back. I do not have an "agenda"; I merely wished to include information in the article that had previously been omitted and may have cast Centlivre in a more postive light, a fairly common endeavour in eighteenth-century scholarship. Eh Elle Dee 00:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

Eh Ell Dee, other IPs, and "Brenna.gray", may I ask if you're aware of the definition of meatpuppets and the Wikipedia policy on them? How about WP:TROLL? Bishonen | talk 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

• I invite and encourage you to show me exactly where I have engaged in trolling. And my shared interest with Eh Ell Dee in this playwright in no way negates that I am very much my own person, I assure you. I have taken the liberty of removing the non-pseudonym you used in your comments. I am certain you had no intention of violating Eh Ell Dee's privacy, but I encourage you to be more careful in future. Thank you. --Brenna.gray 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Bishonen: There are actually several more people who have a vested interest in the conversation that has been going on between Geogre and EDD over the last couple of days. We are students studying these plays and playwrights; and we are trying our hand at scholarship in an area of interest to us.

If you want to bring up "trolling" perhaps you could read the above comments from Geogre and reevaluate your thoughts on who is "trolling" who, and upon what grounds. Thank you. --Susiebowers 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you prefer not to click on my links, here's the policy on meatpuppets: "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible. The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think. Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles often need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less."

• There has been no advertisement involved here beyond a decision as a class to improve wikipedia's articles on the playwrights we have been studying. Susiebower and myself have created wikipedia entries for other 18th century women playwrights. Our interest in this entry is no different. --Brenna.gray 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As regards trolling, I had the comment "Geogre baiting is strangely fun" in mind. I think you know where I read it. What is it you have in mind, Susie? I'm very surprised to see Geogre accused of trolling, so I would really like you to be a little more specific than in your grandly sweeping reference to "above comments". What I see above is Geogre taking your views (or perhaps rather your view) seriously, and engaging with it. A bit of a waste of time, perhaps. What is the "vested interest" you speak of? Whose vested interest? It looks like you're ascribing a "vested interest" to yourselves, but that's a little hard to believe... assuming you know what the phrase means?

• I wonder why wikipedia doesn't have a policy encouraging people not to cyberstalk other wikipedians. --Brenna.gray 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you to individually, as people, not as a group, consider the group dynamics you have developed here at Wikipedia. Are you quite happy about it? Bishonen | talk 01:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

• I don't mean to be a bother and I don't mean to gang up. I used "vested interest" incorrectly as well. All I wanted to say was that I'm a student with an interest in this area of scholarship (18th century drama and criticism) and I'm now leaving this discussion because the discussion is no longer relevant to my original interests. Sorry to have wasted anyone's time. --Susiebowers 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Eh Ell Dee posted a well-thought out improvement to the Centlivre article that added important information about the gendered situation at the time, as well as her reputation as an artist. She was attacked by Geogre, called naive, referred to as writing in a "hi-lights" fashion... Frankly, there he is the only one on this talk page with something to be ashamed of. Oh, and yourself, Bishonen, for your cyberstalking. --Brenna.gray 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Brenna, since you're new and unfamiliar with the culture of the site (as well as uninterested in it, I guess) and with our policy WP:AGF, I'll overlook your tone and your implication that I lie. Google gave me precisely two hits when I typed in the phrases "daughter of William Freeman" and "Lynn Regis": this Wikipedia article, and EDD's blog. I performed such a search in an effort to locate the old-fashioned text that EDD was apparently quoting large chunks from (not the best way of producing flow or encyclopedic tone, if you don't mind my saying so). I don't have access to the DNB, so that may well have been it. You know—the source that Geogre had rewritten in up-to-date English? Bishonen | talk 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Finberg Backup

Finberg used two specific sources for the information about Susanna Centlivre in the introduction to her Oxford UP 2001 edition of "Eighteenth-Century Women Dramatists" in which she writes of Centlivre's popularity as a playwright. These two sources cite the popularity of Centlivre's plays:

1. Jean Gagen's entry "Susanna Centlivre" in Paula R. Backscheider (ed.) Dictionary of Literary Biography, 84, Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Dramatists (Detroit, 1989).

• I don't trust Paula Backscheider as far as I can throw her, and I especially do not trust her to go to the primaries in an anthology headnote. Then again, neither should you trust her. We are supposed to be scholars. Geogre 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2. John Wilson Bowyer's full-length study: The Celebrated Mrs Centlivre (Durham, NC, 1952).

• A sturdy book, but there still isn't a full length scholarly study. Neither of these proferred sources can account for the definition of "comedy" that disallows the ballad opera and the political satire. It's possible to say that Henry Longfellow is the greatest American long narrative ballad author of all time, but that wouldn't be saying much. Did you glance at The London Stage? Geogre 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there are two approaches to 18th century drama going head to head here over this particular article. Perhaps some agreement can be made:

1. Yes, Susanna Centlivre achieved some popularity for some plays but she was not necessarily "amazing" or "outstanding" in comparison to other playwrights of her time. 2. Gender mattered in the eighteenth century, but feminism didn't exist then. --Susiebowers 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The various IPs are me posting from various computers I have at my disposal in labs and the like. I certainly agree with SB re: gender and feminism and Centlivre's popularity (in fact, that was the only "hagiography" I wished to include in the article). Geogre, does the Oxford UP's notoriously rigorous vetting process reassure you that Finberg's comments are indeed valid? Eh Elle Dee 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, unless you plan on revealing your identity to us, I'd appreciate if you remove my name from your comments. Thanks. Eh Elle Dee 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All right. Since you put your first name openly on the internet, where I stumbled on it without even looking for it, it wasn't clear to me that you had a special reluctance to seeiing it on Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

How exactly did you *stumble* on it? I'm sorry if Geogre feels "ganged up on", but I'd prefer not to make this a meta discussion and stick to the topic at hand, namely, Centlivre. 131.202.113.138 02:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how Geogre feels; I'll wager it'll take more than your group to make him feel crushed. But I still don't like to see this, as you say, ganging-up behavior. You prefer not to discuss your baiting and your fun? I don't blame you. I tell you the same as I'm telling Brenna above: new users get a lot of tolerance on Wikipedia, so I'll overlook your implication that I lie. For how I <tee hee> "stumbled" on it, please see my reply to Brenna's attack above. Not that I see exactly what the great interest is, but since you ask. Bishonen | talk 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

I admit that I wanted someone to engage in debate with me over the content of this article so that I could see where others stood on it. Geogre has proved a spirited debating partner (and since he was willing to engage with one of my classmates, I was curious to see what he said about my contributions), and I've been enjoying the back-and-forth as each of us try to justify our respective positions. Of course, since this is Wikipedia, there's (generally) no way to tell what someone else's background is, and it's been fun speculating on how Geogre has found his information and how he might counter mine next.

• Improvements? Umm, let's see: adding unsourced and whole phrases from old sources is an improvement, when that contribution was neither to the point nor to the credit of the author? Turning from a full paragraph style to a Hi-Lites style (and it's Hi-Lites, not "Hi-Lights") is an improvement? Introducing typos is an improvement? Trying to segregate the life and politics is an improvement? If you cannot guess my background, I have no interest in making claims, but you will not find me blogging about myself writing about myself on another website and fretting over my interactions with e-people. Actual anonymity is a decision one makes and keeps to throughout. It is something that one does not merely when it is convenient and not looking an ass. If you do not wish whatever papers you submit to journals to be tarred with your gaps and mistakes on an intentionally first-draught medium like Wikipedia, then be anonymous throughout. Most importantly, though, is the day after graduate school when you are no longer the most fascinating person you have ever met; it helps one approach anonymity and actually mean it, because it is the day when you no longer want to be applauded, no longer demand that others tell you how clever you are, no longer sit and wait for admiration to come flooding in. It's an important day for most people, even if they never rise to the level of scholar and instead set their sights on criticism. Throughout, I have avoided calling the persons foolish or naive, as I do not know and do not wish to meet them, but I have been and remain of the opinion that the "improvements" were naive, boorish, and filled with the sort of foolhardy enthusiasm of an M.A. student. That might be an accident of bad editing or an accurate reflection. I do not care about the person, but, after enough of this steady erosion in the quality of the article, I had to care about readability issues and exposing Wikipedia to lawsuits by plagiarism. If more copyrighted material is entered without citation, I will have to block. Geogre 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My text wasn't unsourced - I used the same source listed at the bottom of the article, read it to see what had been left out, and added that information. I'm not entirely sure how that constitutes plagarism, especially as there were no footnotes in the article when I came to it. What is it, exactly, that you want as proof for the information I want to put in the article? I can directly quote and cite sources if you'd like, but I was under the impression that, as the DNB was the only source for this article, that re-wording information from it was appropriate. If and when I have time, I'll most likely propose changes incorporating Finberg and a few journal articles available through EBSCO. 156.34.65.212 03:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

a proposition

Geogre (just so that I stop referring to you in the third person), I have a small essay on why it is that I chose to make the changes I did. it's about 2 double-spaced pages. I know that would be a lot to post here, but would you like to see the train of logic I followed? Honestly, I'd still like to see some of my changes kept, and perhaps we can come to an agreeement over this.

If not, I'll have to dig up some more articles :)

We may also be coming from different perspectives: to me, a lack of a feminist viewpoint is no more neutral than the presence of one. Do you disagree? If you do, this could be the root of at least some of our contention.

No more time for trawling

Sorry, XXXXXX, but no more fun. Contribute usefully, and all is well. Cite your sources, do not plagiarize ancient tomes. Now that there is external evidence that you are editing in bad faith, I will watch your "contributions" pretty carefully. Stay in school. Geogre 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and do not bait with "lack of feminist statements is a negation of feminism." A half-bright three year old could see the illogic of such a stance and an introspective teenager could see the stack of assumptions necessary for deluding oneself into holding such a view. If you really believe that, then I ask you to think it through...for a long, long time. Geogre 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that you're reading as carefully as ever.156.34.65.212 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (I took the liberty of removing my name, and will continue to do so.)

I recommend that you remove it everywhere, then. The omission of anything is not charged, and to believe that an omission is a statement is only possible if you carry with you a set of assumptions that simply does not apply. Do I really need to explain this? If you assume that female authors must be handled via this nebulous creature called "feminism" (which feminism, of course, is up to the critic to decide on the spur of the moment, whether it's ecrit feminine today or brain science tomorrow or body construction the next day or psychoanalytic the day after that), then you can say that omitting it is purposeful -- but then you assume a universal status, a holiness, for this critical tool that is utterly transhistorical. If you assume that all that is not stated is intentionally repressed or omitted, then you can assume that the fact that the article doesn't discuss colonialism is a conscious decision to endorse mercantilism and the slave trade, too. If you assume that the "margin is the center," then there is a great deal of stuff on the margin that should have equal priority with "feminism." If you assume that no one could omit "a feminist perspective" because there isn't one, then you can assume that some violence is being done to this private icon of "feminism." If you read criticism at all, you know full well that there isn't one feminist reading: there are dozens and dozens and dozens, and choosing between all of them is to force a point of view on the reader. In other words, Wikipedia demands that we have WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and choosing among the clamoring contenders of "feminist reading" is to insert a point of view about which critical reading of the life is the right one. I will not make a choice nor willingly suffer the article to go about enforcing "good feminism" over "bad feminism." Geogre 03:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was merely attempting to explain that I'm not coming from a "hagiographic" perspective - Centlivre is important as both a political author and as a female author. I'm not sure why both perspectives can't be included.

Do you really think that admissions committees care about a course blog? 156.34.65.212 04:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am jumping in here as I was the one who asked their graduate students to edit Wikipedia articles in the first place, thinking working on real projects with a potential audience, rather than the usual classroom assignments, would be much more engaging. The class has put in a lot of effort and made genuine contributions, and several of them had seemed to have been bitten by the Wiki bug and well on the way to becoming regular contributors. But this conversation will no doubt make them run for the hills; it has gotten way out of hand. I hardly think that comments, however injudicious, lightly made on someone's course weblog (yes, open to anyone to read but aimed at the small community of classmates and instructor and their discussions about approaches to 18thc scholarship), is "external evidence" of "bad faith." You are mistaking the enthusiasm of people newly discovering a subject, with deliberate antagonism. I for one am delighted with how strongly the class has responded to the writers we are studying, and I would hope that anyone interested in 18thc literature would share that delight, whatever criticisms they might have of its expression. How disheartening that Eh Elle Dee's attempt at conciliation was rebuffed, and so brusquely. To say nothing of the long tirade about graduate students, which is downright abusive. And the continual references to some mystery text that no-one has been able to identify, yet provides a pretext to threaten blocking, is beyond the pale. scribblingwoman 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You see your students as innocent victims, myself as a horrible meanie. <shrug> This is not surprising. There is no tirade about graduate students, but one of the weaknesses of people who engage criticism for the first time, as well as one of the strengths, is that they take the first new perspective as the perspective. They're young in the trade, whatever their ages, and still rush with energy (good!) and zeal (bad!), and the overwhelming belief in an unspecified and uncritical "women's writing" perspective can be cloying at the best of times, rude the rest of the time. Being implicitly accused of every troglodytic crime since the dawn of time is hardly going to make me want to rush forward to pet their heads. I have no tolerance anymore for people who make assumptions of such a nature, and I darn sure wouldn't tell my students to edit Wikipedia unless they were aware that their words could be and would be edited. All of this began with my asking people to talk about changes on the talk page. Apparently, that was a deep attack. If there are additions, great. I have always agreed with citing and adding material from other sources. It is fair to report on how Centlivre is now viewed by gender studies, of course, but it is the difference between third and first person. What was reported earlier was covered by a single reference partly because it was confined so very strictly to bland fact, with neither critical appreciation nor denigration, that there was no need to footnote. Once we cross from these simple, chronological points, we need to begin citing precisely. (The 2004 DNB gets most of its material from the 1898 DNB, which relied on Jacob, who is a really, really shaky source because of his vested interests in whig supremacy and his shoddy methodology. While we're at it, the Leslie Stephens is heavily colored by Macaulay's Whig History.) Doing this stuff properly means being critical of sources, knowing the politics of the reference works. Geogre 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you say about sources, of course, though in fairness the desirability of such scrupulous background is surely more honoured in the breach, in many articles. I do disagree with some of your characterization of this discussion, but at this point it hardly seems fruitful to continue along those lines. The main point is this, it seems to me: you are an administrator with a strong interest in the Restoration and the 18thc. You have here, suddenly, a group of newbies who, though they are learning the ropes of Wikipedia, have writing and research skills and want to contribute. Not just for marks; their marks are based on material they have already handed me. They understand that the project is collaborative; that is why their assessment is based on the material they hand me, not on the ever-changing articles. But here they are. Now they can be welcomed and some may join the community here and help build the area to which you, and I, are both committed. Or not. I would hope that they -- that we -- are welcomed. scribblingwoman 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel attacked, although I suppose I've been "owned" (according to a certain talk page), which isn't exactly what one might term "good faith". If you'd like to discuss changes that might be made, let's, otherwise, I leave the Centlivre article to you. You obviously have far more invested in it than I do, and persons wishing to research her will no doubt come across Finberg's book. Eh Elle Dee 14:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you might not read the wiki slang term in the way it's used. Please see WP:OWN. Bishonen | talk 14:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Indeed, I meant that I was trying to avoid violating WP:OWN. I don't have to like changes (e.g. Eliza Haywood), so long as they're supported and valid, and I was calling for another person with a strong background to take a look to see whether or not I was being unreasonable in rolling back those changes. As soon as it became 5:1 and all the action moved to the talk page, with no more changing of the article itself, it became necessary to have more to say about the dynamics and how unfruitful they were.

Just today, I met with section of the Nicomachean Ethics that resonated.

Since a young man "is apt to be swayed by his passions, he will derive no benefit from a study whose aim is practical and not speculative. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or in character, for the young man's disqualification is not a matter of time, but due to the fact that feeling or passion rules his life and directs all his desires." -- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics i.

It seems, all ipse dixit aside, that I'm not the first to note, on introspection, the strengths of youth and the weaknesses. Geogre 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Geogre, if you still don't see how your agression and personal attacks have transgressed the spirit of Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers from your own initial post, then I have little else to add to the discussion. Eh Ell Dee has tried to offer solutions, but you are not interested in any point of view but your own. I am sorry for this experience. I have enjoyed the changes I have made to wikipedia -- there was no Elizabeth Griffith article at all, and I enjoyed creating her entry, and think I did a very good job of it -- but this entire experience has soured me on ever contributing to wikipedia again. Not that that should bother you. I shall take my supposed self-involvement elsewhere, and I will encourage my peers, regardless of their expertise, to do the same. Apparently we are not welcome here -- no grad student could read your tirade against us, Geogre, and feel welcome. --Brenna.gray 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • And if you cannot see any passive aggression in the previous posts, then I have nothing to add, either. Nor can I be accountable, nor anyone else, for the feelings and perceptions of another. If you can be driven away from communicating knowledge and offering to the world expertise by a single person, then this is most emphatically your problem and no one else's. Heaven forbid that you ever get a hostile question at a conference, that you ever present a paper and then find out that the authorities you admire think you made a hash of it, that you ever get a B, that you encounter someone unreasonable demanding that her preferred view be added to your completed dissertation, that you meet up with a review in PMLA that misses the point and dismisses the book you spent four years on, that you have tenure review committees that tell you that the press that published your book is third tier. Compared to any of that, my request that people use the talk page before rewriting the entire article is relatively mild. As for "tirade" against graduate students, I suspect you are seeing what you wish to see. What I see as an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of emergent scholars, you see as a personal attack. Inasmuch as I have not offered a view, but rather been skeptical of views, of either Centlivre or anything else, I cannot see how my own view is a thing I am interested in in this article.
  • I am sorry that you folks have taken a reflexive banding together and been unable to assess your own style objectively, or even to admit any criticism at all. I am further sorry that all progress on the article has ceased, that my repeated calls for you folks to go ahead and start editing the damn thing instead of trying to win in an argument against me or seeking a "debating partner," have been unanswered. I should hate to lose interested, engaged, and educated editors, but no one has been editing this article since I did that rollback. Is there nothing but the choppy paragraphing and the separation of politics and playwriting that needed to be done?
  • I keep asking you folks to made the additions and cite sources and merely to talk about substantial changes to the existing article before making them, to engage with the other authors, and yet what we get is three screens of The Geogre vs. The Class. I'm sorry, but I have no interest in being personally pleasing, nor to encourage bull sessions and personality arguments on talk pages when editing on the article itself has ceased. Geogre 12:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If we need a way forward...

Just go ahead and start editing. I would appreciate that major format changes get discussed in advance. My view is that breaking paragraphs into tiny little sections is stylistically inferior, and I'm always aghast at these infobite approaches. However, the article was always intended as a brief introduction, so it stuck to the palimpsest of DNB. In-depth biographical detail would be great, and a section on "contemporary reputation" would be a fantastic addition.

I do, of course, have an approach to the 18th century. I believe that every part of every author in the first half of the century was consciously engaged in ongoing political and religious (which were the same thing) arguments and that they were consciously creating public personae that were political creatures. These projections have little to do with the private person, from our point of view, because the authors made their subjective selves as inaccessible to us as they could. This was an age that didn't believe in individual psychology the way that we do, that believed that talking about yourself was vanity (see the reaction to Cibber), so I will always shape my accounts that way. I don't think this view is particularly controversial, however, and I am always aware of making it merely a selection criterion and shaping principle. Therefore, I will argue against trying to create a psychological portrait of a figure who tried to prevent our knowing what that psychology was and will ask for some serious scholarship that can assure readers that we have achieved the unthinkable and learned the inmost secrets of a person dead two centuries. Geogre 13:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I'd like to do:

1) Reinstate the categorical divisions. Instead of isolating each point, I'll consolidate them into paragraphs. Then, if you don't like the writing style, it will be easier for you to change certain words and phrases, rather than being put off by the entire structure.

2) Add a citation from Finberg to the claim that Centlivre was "one of the premiere dramatists of the eighteenth century." I thought that this was common knowledge, but our discussion here has shown that it's still a point of contention.

3)Any references to probability rather than fact are from the DNB. I can quote directly if you'd like. Is that what you mean by "learning the inmost secrets" of the author?

Thank you for opening this up to dialogue again. I actually made very few changes to the actual content of the article, and we can certainly work together on the tone until we're both happy with it. I do think it's important, however, to acknowledge Centlivre's historical role as a woman writer in addition to her role as a political writer. Perhaps something like, "well-known for her political involvement during her lifetime, she is now also studied as a literary figure in Women's Studies," or something like that? Eh Elle Dee 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to see how this discussion has turned out, but hope it leads to some improvement to the article, which is what this is all about, after all. Go ahead and be bold, but don't be surprised if your well-crafted prose is "edited mercilessly", as the boilerplate text says.

FWIW, I think "premiere dramatist" (I would say "leading dramatist") is such a POV-laden phrase that the opinion ought to be directly attributed in the prose (i.e. "Finberg considers that Centlivre was one of the leading dramatists of the 18th century.).

I think you need to be rather careful about overlaying your early-21st century feminist POV on a person from an earlier century. I seem to remember someone saying that the past is a foreign country. I doubt Centlivre saw herself as a "woman writer" in they way that you seem to. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The compromise text is fine. It is undoubtedly true that she is now "considered" a major woman-author, although I do not believe, as I have stated elsewhere, that there is any such stable category as "woman author" that can be discussed coherently without rather massive scholarship and continual reference to an external body of research. (E.g. it is possible to talk about her plays in the context of the information that Lawrence Stone gives us, in the context of the information Braudel gives us, in the context of the information medical histories give us, in the context of other external researches, but talking about what it means absolutely is too tenuous.) I agree with ALoan, as well, that anyone who says that she is a "premiere dramatist" needs an explicit reference. Yes, it is a point of controversy. I think she's an important figure. I think she was occasionally a very good playwright. I don't think she has the literary significance of quite a few others ("significance" in terms of effects on later developments in drama). Lacking a promotional claim is not an expression of pejoration. Take a look at one of the other political playwrights -- even someone like Charles Molloy -- for how a division can avoid being a segmentation of the public person. Geogre 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To bolster ALoan's point: take a look at the rather undoubted "leading dramatists of the age" and see if their lead paragraphs ever make such a valuative claim. Aphra Behn is a horrible article, but, while it states the plain fact that "in the 1680's no playwright other than Dryden was staged more frequently": no need to call her the best, when the fact makes the case. Thomas Otway doesn't say anything about his being a leading playwright, although his one great play had a bigger impact than The Busybody. Even John Dryden doesn't say he was the leading playwright of the Restoration, even though he pretty much was the guy everyone dealt with, pro or con. It's simply not our way to make a claim like that without a direct citation, and, as we discussed far above, Finberg's claim is based on some serious qualification of "comedy" to get to the alleged level of popularity. (This is not to say she wasn't very popular, that she wasn't very important, but it is to pay careful attention to the facts in an endeavor to avoid critical point of view in encyclopedia articles.) Geogre 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably make some changes in a week or so. This is a very busy time of year for me, but I'll definitely come back to this as soon as possible. I really want this article to be as comprehensive as possible, so I'll be doing some more research and adding a few articles to the sources soon. Eh Elle Dee 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

"Start Class"? You have got to be kidding me. I've changed the assessment to "B" class. A "Start class" article is supposed to need "Substantial/major editing" or to have "most material for a complete article" added. Fer Gawd's sake. This article is comprehensive, well illustrated, and well written. "B" doesn't fit that well either, as it's by no means true that "Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors," but it's the closest I can do. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

It would be nice if one of the B.A.D. people were to answer honestly why they think everything is "start" or "stub." I can only assume that they look for superscript numbers. If there are none, it's "start." As for "stub," I assume that, to them, is merely a question of number of screens. It hardly needs pointing out that this is stupid, that a -bot can (and, comfortingly, does) simply count bytes and even find a superscript, and humans are supposed to possess intelligence that has been trained into reason. Geogre 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)