Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Jansen, Sharon L. (2011). "Reading Women's Worlds from Christine de Pizan to Doris Lessing: A Guide to Six Centuries of Women Writers Imagining Rooms of Their Own". Palgrave Macmillan.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
quoting sentence/s within sentence and initial case; and periods ending quotes
When a sentence contains a quotation of a sentence's beginning, the practice and I think a convention that I've seen in various publications, generally scholarly in various fields, if the first letter is capitalized only because it begins the sentence (and not also, say, a proper noun), the first capital is replaced with a bracketed lower-case letter. I'll leave the recent capitalizing edit as it is, in case it's easier for readers in this instance, but I think it can lead to confusion if the first word is, say, "You", as that would carry a religious connotation that effectively would change the meaning of a sentence from the original and making that into an exception might create an inconsistency in an article. The different case of a sentence containing a quotation of both a full sentence followed by the beginning of another sentence also follows the same convention but only for the first sentence, but that can look odd, so I sometimes solve that by preceding the quotation with a colon. Overall, I favor continuing the bracketing with lower-casing but on this style point I think each editor can be left to their own style. Feel free to edit or discuss at MOS:QUOTE or the essay WP:QUOTE. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The more recent edit decapitalizing without brackets and also moving periods (full stops) is also something I'll leave as is but its edit summary relies on MoS and MoS does not exactly support either action. MoS is more complicated on both points. Regarding full stops, it appears to be a preference by some editors to place it always outside of the closing quotation mark, but neither MoS nor many sources require it. If we're quoting a full sentence and the source ended it with a period, we can end it with a period, too, and putting the period outside of the closing quotation mark leads to a misimpression that the source had more in the sentence at the end and that we omitted it. However, in some cases, the period should be outside of the quotation mark. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
TV item from spunkybean.com and reliability
A recent edit deleted content about a television episode. I checked the source and, at a glance, it seems to support the content. If the source is reliable, the content and the section heading should be restored. If it is not reliable, nothing should be done. The source is within spunkybean.com and I tried to determine its reliability or lack thereof. It describes itself as possibly a blog or an endorser for FTC purposes but seems to have several writers and maybe it's edited and maybe it does some fact-checking, so I don't know if it's sufficient as an RS. It's not in the RS noticeboard. The site's About Us page is essentially blank and archive.org doesn't have anything significantly different from 2015 or 2016; I didn't look for About Us page versions older than that. If someone else can decide, please do. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Whoo, was I a moron with that one. A little more scrolling would have saved me. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) (Syntax corrected: 00:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC))
Contradiction?
The phrase "Society for Cutting Up Men" is on the cover of the 1967 self-published edition, after the title, in "'Presentation of ... SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) ....'" This edition precedes all commercial editions. Additionally, in the August 10, 1967 issue of The Village Voice, a letter to the editor appears that was signed by a Valerie Solanas (of SCUM, West 23rd Street) that responds to a previous letter signed by a Ruth Herschberger (published in the August 3, 1967 issue) that asks why women do not rebel against men. Solanas's response reads: "I would like to inform her and other proud, independent, females like her of the existence of SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men), a recently conceived organization which will be getting into high gear (and I mean high) within a few weeks.
However, though "SCUM" originally stood for "Society For Cutting Up Men", as evidenced inside one edition, this phrase actually occurs nowhere in the text. Heller argued that "there is no reliable evidence that Solanas intended SCUM to stand as an acronym for 'Society for Cutting Up Men'."
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand how the facts listed in the first paragraph do not constitute reliable evidence that SCUM was indeed intended by Solanas to stand as an acronym for "Society for Cutting Up Men". Can anybody explain that to me? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
