A fact from Power of Women appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 April 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I notice one of the carvings on Commons is dated to the 12th century (according to Wikipedia...), while we now say "The story of Phyllis and Aristotle dates from the early 13th century and became the subject of popular poems, plays and moralizing sermons. [1]
Do they mean a/the specific literary work? Johnbod ( talk) 18:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
It is a great pity that that what has become the standard definition of the topos (for example it is quoted in Kendra Grimmett's 2014 Austin thesis) has been reverted by an editor (apparently anxious to protect their own edits) on the grounds that it refers to "feminine wiles" (but that was in Professor Aaij's article start right from the beginning and in fact remains in the present article in the Susan Smith quotation a couple of sentences later). The quotation was from H. Diane Russell's "Eva/Ave" ( a publication of the National Gallery of Art, Washington and The Feminist Press at the City University of New York) and I am restoring it with an extra sentence to satisfy the exacting scruples of an editor who really ought to know better (polite would be nice too).
The truth is that this article has lost its way after its enterprising start by Aaij, groundbreaking on Wikipedia in its own way one supposes. Not only is Susan Smith's famous thesis not directly cited, but her whole program is misrepresented (the point is that she showed the topos began in the decorative arts before moving into print-making).
I am encouraging a student (who knows the sources) to resume their edits here. I ask editors to extend them the usual courtesies.
Thank you. 128.90.94.37 ( talk) 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I see you have reverted nevertheless. I also notice my very talented young student has been indulging her own feminine wiles in a way that I can not entirely condone, delicious though that might be. At any rate she evidently can fend very adequately for herself. The rest you can have all to yourself. Plainly you are very committed to your contributions and who am I to doubt their worth? 199.48.244.24 ( talk) 14:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
My revisions were reverted, so I would like to discuss them.
When I first read the sentence: "They often appear on the same pieces as the Assault on the Castle of Love, as on a casket in Baltimore," I was confused by the "in Baltimore" part. Why would they be in Baltimore? Aren't they from Europe? I don't think it's clear what exactly that means, so I think it's a good idea to clarify what that means by saying that it's a casket currently held by the Walters Art Museum.
The second thing is the term "drag," which to me brings up images of RuPaul and the modern conception of a drag queen. This is not the image that I think we should be going for with this topic; I think "crossdressing" or "womens' clothes" are more neutral in terms of connotation. - Sandtalon ( talk) 00:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
A fact from Power of Women appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 April 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I notice one of the carvings on Commons is dated to the 12th century (according to Wikipedia...), while we now say "The story of Phyllis and Aristotle dates from the early 13th century and became the subject of popular poems, plays and moralizing sermons. [1]
Do they mean a/the specific literary work? Johnbod ( talk) 18:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
It is a great pity that that what has become the standard definition of the topos (for example it is quoted in Kendra Grimmett's 2014 Austin thesis) has been reverted by an editor (apparently anxious to protect their own edits) on the grounds that it refers to "feminine wiles" (but that was in Professor Aaij's article start right from the beginning and in fact remains in the present article in the Susan Smith quotation a couple of sentences later). The quotation was from H. Diane Russell's "Eva/Ave" ( a publication of the National Gallery of Art, Washington and The Feminist Press at the City University of New York) and I am restoring it with an extra sentence to satisfy the exacting scruples of an editor who really ought to know better (polite would be nice too).
The truth is that this article has lost its way after its enterprising start by Aaij, groundbreaking on Wikipedia in its own way one supposes. Not only is Susan Smith's famous thesis not directly cited, but her whole program is misrepresented (the point is that she showed the topos began in the decorative arts before moving into print-making).
I am encouraging a student (who knows the sources) to resume their edits here. I ask editors to extend them the usual courtesies.
Thank you. 128.90.94.37 ( talk) 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I see you have reverted nevertheless. I also notice my very talented young student has been indulging her own feminine wiles in a way that I can not entirely condone, delicious though that might be. At any rate she evidently can fend very adequately for herself. The rest you can have all to yourself. Plainly you are very committed to your contributions and who am I to doubt their worth? 199.48.244.24 ( talk) 14:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
My revisions were reverted, so I would like to discuss them.
When I first read the sentence: "They often appear on the same pieces as the Assault on the Castle of Love, as on a casket in Baltimore," I was confused by the "in Baltimore" part. Why would they be in Baltimore? Aren't they from Europe? I don't think it's clear what exactly that means, so I think it's a good idea to clarify what that means by saying that it's a casket currently held by the Walters Art Museum.
The second thing is the term "drag," which to me brings up images of RuPaul and the modern conception of a drag queen. This is not the image that I think we should be going for with this topic; I think "crossdressing" or "womens' clothes" are more neutral in terms of connotation. - Sandtalon ( talk) 00:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)