Talk:Ginger: The Life and Death of Albert Goodwin

Rebuttal section

Content

Rebuttal Mayse answered much of the harsh criticism in advance of the critique. With an air of defiance, Mayse writes in the book that she ranks "labor history and other unofficial histories", low; saying that "working people can choose to perpetuate the official history . . . or to challenge it." In challenging style, she continues; "This is our history as working people. If we want it on record — not just the patronizing and distorted views of the privileged — we must speak out."<ref name=L2/> Mayse approached the writing with the perspective of a fourth generation native islander, and a kinship to the stories she grew up around. Mayse's style, in writing Ginger, has endured a test of time. Without being a definitive history of Goodwin, the book is authoritative in the areas Mayse included. Ginger has been cited in the bibliographies for other published works that research the topic of Goodwin.<ref name=L2/

There are some problems with this. How can Mayse be "answering" anything in advance of the critique? The quotes are out of context - they aren't a rebuttal, but simply comments on her writing perspective. I'm not sure where the "air of defiance" comes from. If anything, these quotes would go into the background section beacuse they speak to motivations. Following this, we have three uncited sentences - "Mayse approached the writing with the perspective of a fourth generation native islander, and a kinship to the stories she grew up around. Mayse's style, in writing Ginger, has endured a test of time. Without being a definitive history of Goodwin, the book is authoritative in the areas Mayse included." - which include some original research, in my opinion. The Interior (Talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've hidden this section until some improvements can be made. The article is on the main page, and this content is potentially misleading. The Interior (Talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I would not have attempted this edit if I had known it was currently being featured on the main page. I agree with your decision to remove it. There is a lot of misplaced conjecture in the prose, but I would argue that it is as self-apparent as Paris' location. To answer criticism in advance is to anticipate it.

Consider the included criticism that Mayse "overlooked some scholarly literature". It is impossible, from that critique, to know that Mayse choose to omit the "scholarly" source, and easily construed to imply slothful research, until you know Mayse's perspective; which was, yes, published in advance of the critique, in Ginger's forward passages.

The "air of defiance" seemed intuitive to me when she stated her intent to either "perpetuate the official history . . . or to challenge it". She prefaced this by self-declaring it as a choice; "we must choose", and characterized it as "the patronizing and distorted views of the privileged". I can not read these quoted statements and not sense "defiance of mainstream conformance."

That Mayse is a forth generation native is often cited, that it influenced her writing follows naturally, and that she held views strongly, is all accentuated in her statement, "This is our history".^{note 1} The other works that cite Mayse can be compiled, beginning with the "Further reading" section; as Stonebanks does include Ginger in his bibliography for Fighting for Dignity.

Again however, this content can be worked into the article and, undoubtedly, copy-edited for improved presentation and placement. I fully agree that the process of debate to reach the best end is better postponed for the near term, and too drastic, for an article currently being showcased on the main page. I did not mean to aggrieve anyone, in any way, and apologize where I may have inadvertently done so. Best regards. --My76Strat (talk)  23:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes
Note 1, Context is critical in evaluating Mayse's comment. She was not saying it in manner akin to "the presentation of a gift", but rather in qualifying her decision not to include certain "scholarly sources" to deliberately not mimic the status quo, which she called "patronizing".

Thanks for your explanation, Strat. My feeling is that we should detail Mayse's writing/research decisions in the "Background" section. They would then provide context for the reader when reading the criticism. As editors, it isn't our place to rebut possibly unfair criticism in the editorial voice. If the crit. appears in a reputable source, we should include it, but also make sure we have a wider spectrum of opinions so that a single crit. doesn't carry too much weight. I think by balancing her own words about her writing process with the scholarly crit., we're being fair to the subject. Are you going to take a shot at a rewrite, or would you like me to rework? The Interior (Talk) 04:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and defer to your best judgement. I would remove the internal comment to reduce clutter in the edit view, and develop the content as you suggest, using the most applicable voice. BTW, I scored a signed 1st edition copy of this book for a shamefully low price. I will share any insight the book offers regarding expanded insight. I have been working on the main article for Ginger, and though not where I wanted to be, I will dump the content saved off-wiki for a collaborative jump-start. I have limited means to edit moving forward, but I will hold it as a high privileged when we do meet collaboratively. Please adopt the entire {{Edna Staebler Award}} article group under your watch, and care. The essence of my ability is reflected; from here, I can only offer neglect and that generally harms progress, if not stability alone. Cheers. --My76Strat (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do some work on this in the next few weeks. Re: your final comment - don't sell yourself short. It was your efforts that brought the material to life in the first place, and brought about collaboration. Remember, WP has no deadline, so efforts in fits and starts are still better than nothing. Best to you, and Merry Christmas, The Interior (Talk) 17:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ginger: The Life and Death of Albert Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829212040/http://www.carpentersunionbc.com/Pages/gingergoodwin.html to http://www.carpentersunionbc.com/Pages/gingergoodwin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)