Talk:Jane Austen

Jane Austen was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 21, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jane Austen article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England B‑class High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Core B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Template:V0.5

Archives

Archive 1 - February 2005 - November 2007, including assorted discussions (e.g. discussions over which Austen portrait to use and copyright status, calls for article improvement, questions regarding Austen's cause of death, etc.)
Archive 2 - November 2007 - February 2008, including discussions of beginning of article rewrite, coat of arms, description of Harris Bigg-Wither, layout of lead and infobox, and Austen's views on slavery
Archive 3 - March 2008, including discussions of Austen's final illness, layout of lead, and orientation of 1810 portrait
Archive 4 - April 2008 - August 2008, including discussions of the images, a failed GA nomination, the sandbox strategy, and infoboxes

Subpages

Talk:Jane Austen/Notes on final illness

Protection and spelling of Love and Freindship

I am requesting semi-protection for this article. All but two of the edits in the last fifty edits are clearly vandalism (or reversion of vandalism) by unregistered users. There have been few if any recent positive contributions by unregistered editors. The supply of vandals seems unlimited. Twenty-eight of the last 50 edits (56%) are vandalism by unregistered users. Therefore, according to the criteria at WP:Rough, this page clearly qualifies for semi-protection. Simmaren (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, good faith edits on this article are also usually removed or reverted. I would suggest, for instance, changing the title of the minor work to "Love and Friendship" (in line with Christine Alexander's observation about deliberate 'juvenilising' of this text, and in view of the fact that it's spelled this way in the new Cambridge edition edited by Peter Sabor) but I see little point given that it's been altered before, and switched back. In fact, maybe the page should just be locked and be done with it. Sills bend (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested semi-protection against a flood of vandalism. It seems to have been effective. Good faith edits by definition are not vandalism, and registered editors are not hampered in any way by semi-protection. Simmaren (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, previous changes from "Freindship" (the title given the work in Austen's manuscript) to "Friendship" were made without prior discussion in what appeared to be mindless efforts to "correct" what seemed to be a typographical error. The spelling of "Friendship" versus "Freindship" is open to discussion, right here. There is a legitimate debate waiting to happen on this point, but it hasn't happened yet. Please feel free to make your case. And before giving up in disgust, take a look at Archive 3 for examples of how good faith discussion resolved two similar issues to everyone's satisfaction. Simmaren (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In her manuscripts, Jane Austen almost always switched "ie" to "ei", including in that French leave-taking "adeiu"... Churchh (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The archived talk page you directed me to was not reassuring, actually. Sills bend (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are very thorough and reliable editors, actually. If you would like to see examples of the work I have produced, please see my userpage. And despite what may look like a difficult dispute, you might look at what User:Pointillist says about the experience you read. Both Simmaren and I are dedicated to making the encyclopedia a better place, with reliable articles. I hope that reassures you to some degree. Awadewit (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sills bend. Not sure how well that archived thread presents the to-and-fro, but in my experience the Jane Austen Talk page is a great place to have serious discussion, and if Simmaren says there's a legitimate debate to have about "Freindship" then the door is wide open. Be careful if you win, though: my prize was the opportunity to write a Death of Jane Austen article for them. - Pointillist (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the friendship/freindship debate, The six-volume Oxford Illustrated Jane Austen uses "friendship". The Penguin Classic Juvinilia of Jane Austen and Charlotte Brontë also gives "friendship", and has a note on page 371, saying "Southam notes in his edition of Volume the Second that Austen herself has amended the traditionally accepted 'Freindship' to read 'Friendship': a change that 'may not be welcome to those of Jane Austen's devotees who value her spelling for its charm' (Volume II, p. vii)." The Oxford World's Classics edition of Catharine and Other Writings gives the traditional "freindship" spelling. I haven't followed the debate here, and haven't checked the archives, so my apologies if I'm repeating something already stated. Stratford490 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have satisfactorily resolved this. Apparently there are conflicting editorial styles. At this point I am leaning towards changing it from the above summary, but I haven't checked all of the multi-volume editions yet. Thoughts? Awadewit (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like 'freindship' because it is what Austen originally wrote. I don't know who Southam is. Only if he was her original publisher would I accept that that is what she indeed meant to do. Auchick (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austen never published these works in her lifetime, so we can't return to her original publisher on this point. Southam is one of the most pre-eminent Austen scholars, who has investigated the reception of Austen in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I'm still on the fence on this one. Both spellings are apparently Austenian, so either one would work. I'm leaning towards the "correct" spelling simply because then we won't have to revert all of the people who come to fix the spelling! Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should investigate, when we find the time (for an example, see the discussion (and yes, results of research) on the cause of Austen's death by following the link under the "Subpages" heading), to see what the "best" choice would be from the point of view of current scholarly practice. This shouldn't be our highest priority but should be decided before peer review. Because this misspelling is so well known and so charming, I'm confident that we will have to revert changes whichever of the two alternatives is ultimately agreed upon. Simmaren (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chapman edition has "friendship" in the table of contents and "freindship" in the actual text. I'm waiting to receive the new Sabor edition of juvenilia. Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sabor edition as "Love and Friendship" in the TOC of Volume the Second with the note "'Freindship' changed to 'Friendship'". The text itself has "Love and Freindship a novel in a series of Letters". I think we could develop an argument for either one. "Freindship" is the original spelling and it occurs throughout the manuscript; "Friendship" is the correct spelling and Austen corrected it in the TOC. Thoughts? Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception history of Jane Austen

Reception history of Jane Austen is now up for GA. Simmaren and I will be taking it to peer review and FAC after that. Help from other Austen editors would be appreciated! Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English literature

English literature is what is written in the English language or, arguably more importantly, what pertains to England. There is no such thing as 'British' literature. I doubt whether Irish, Welsh or Scottish authors would like to be classified as 'British' literature.

This is all very arguable. Considering Blackwell has an anthology of British Literature:1640-1789 and Norton has chosen English literature of the 18th century, I think we can start by saying there is no agreement. :) (By the way, all posts should be signed with four tildas (~~~~). Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a degree in British Literature. I guess my Diploma was wrong. You'd think they'd get that right or something..... Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word Count

In its current state, this article consists of 4,774 words of "readable prose", more or less. As provided in WP:Length, this count includes captions and headings but omits picture captions, the text of footnotes and reference ("see also") sections, the list of works at the end and some but not all formatting text. The word count may seem deceptively small because, among other reasons, a large fraction of the total text seen on the edit page is comprised of footnotes. Simmaren (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. That means we have room for a good "Styles and themes" section and perhaps to expand the bio a bit. Awadewit (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming Jane (Reception Section)

On 10 August I added a reference to a 2007 movie, Becoming Jane [1], that was about the early life of Jane Austen. My change was reverted with only a comment of "do not add information randomly." I admit to being a very novice Wikipedia editor, but I do not understand why my addition was considered random. The current section includes a discussion of 19th century and 20th century works (print & film) about Jane Austen. The section does not include any reference to the Becoming Jane movie. There can be no argument that this movie is related to Jane Austen's life.

If my addition was not formatted properly, then the proper action should have been to edit it, but to keep the information intact. Deleting the reference to this movie was not necessary. Subbob (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reception history" section is a summary of Reception history of Jane Austen and Jane Austen in popular culture, therefore we rarely add information to it. We usually just add information to the daughter articles. Only if the information is incredibly important do we add it to the main article. The film Becoming Jane is a fictional portrayal of the life of Jane Austen, which has not been deemed important by scholars yet. Since there isn't room to list every film, sequel, prequel, etc., we have included only those scholars have deemed important. So far, no case has been made in the scholarly literature for the importance of this film. Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial), on the other hand, is clearly a turning point in Austen adaptations and fandom. Perhaps adding Becoming Jane to Jane Austen in popular culture would be the best way to go for the moment. That is a more exhaustive list of Austen films, etc. Would you like to help us work on that article? We need help in that area! Thanks again. Awadewit (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I understand the linkages and differences between the various Jane Austen articles now. Regarding the request to help with the other articles, I am not a follower or fan of Jane Austen. I had just happened to watch the movie with my wife, checked something on Wikipedia and noted that movie was not part of the article. I appreciate you taking the time to explain why my original edit was not appropriate for this page. Subbob (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Becoming Jane" was so depressing that I had to turn it off very quickly. I have no idea how factual the movie was, but it seemed pretty fictional. Auchick (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Jane Austen's grave

I had to remove our image of JA's grave because of copyright problems and I haven't been able to find a good replacement. Anyone have a good one? Awadewit (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's this image available from Flickr; per COM:FLICKR, it can be uploaded to Commons. María (habla conmigo) 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe we could find a better one - without the glare. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the others seem to be covered under "all rights reserved". Unless you want one of some fangirl/boy mugging for the camera while hovering over the tomb? Talk about morbid... María (habla conmigo) 17:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people come by this article - I was hoping someone could take a really good picture. :) (Some day this will be featured - it would be nice to have high-quality images.) Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education

Jane Austen was sent away from home for some of her education, but this is not included, I'm wondering why.