Talk:Jane Austen/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Update on article rewrite

As some of you are aware Simmaren and Awadewit are rewriting the Austen article in userspace to avoid bothering everyone. :) Anyway, the first fruits of our efforts have now been posted - the Timeline of Jane Austen. This was modeled on the Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft, which became a featured list. We would appreciate comments and reviews, as eventually we would like to make it a FL as well. We hope to have a "Reception history of Jane Austen" article prepared in the next month or two. :) Awadewit | talk 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I have removed the "influences" sections from the infobox. The list was very selective and unsourced. Austen was influenced by too many writers and has been an influence on too many writers to make such a list useful. And J. K. Rowling? Surely that was a joke. :) Awadewit | talk 13:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

As the lists of JA movies and television shows were starting to get long, I have moved them off of this page onto Jane Austen in popular culture. I can only anticipate that such lists will get longer once a thorough search is made, so such a new page seemed like a good idea. Awadewit | talk 10:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have replaced the "Further reading" with a more carefully selected "Bibliography". The "Further reading" seemed to be a bit of a hodge-podge (there were some fictional works in it as well). The new "Bibliography" is a careful selection of the most important works on Austen (see Cambridge Companion to Austen and other bibliographies for verification on this). This "Bibliography" will also serve as the foundation for the newly rewritten article. Awadewit | talk 08:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Prince Regent

I think we should move the Prince Regent material into the "Life" section. It doesn't really flow in the "Reception" section right now. Ideas on where to put it? Awadewit | talk 10:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'll fiddle with it now. Simmaren 16:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
On Bentley's publication history, Gilson, "Editions and Publishing History," The Jane Austen Companion, p. 137 (my original source) says that Bentley published Sense and Sensibility as a single volume in December 1832, dated 1833, and the other novels in 1833. Gilson, "Later Publishing History," Jane Austen in Context, p. 127, says that Bentley purchased the copyrights in 1832, issued Sense and Sensibility (dated 1833) "Late in December 1832 or early in January 1833" with the rest published as individual volumes by August 1833 and the very first collected edition in October 1833. (Life is difficult when the sources disagree, isn't it. Especially when it's the same scholar.) I will honor Gilson's most recent thoughts and change it to "late 1832 or early 1833" or somesuch. Simmaren 16:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ew. What a mess. Or, "Early in the 1830s". :) Awadewit | talk 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reception history

The fork on Reception history of Jane Austen has now been posted. Awadewit | talk 11:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sections and layout

By the way, we have to pick our battles about this page. The portrait, for example, is one I'm willing to battle over (we should use it, not the 1870 version), but I'm not willing to go to battle over the "historical context" label. I'm happy if no one reverts it, but I think that by the time we get to WP:PR and WP:FAC, people will complain about this violation of the WP:MOS. No one really accepts that idea you can break all the rules, unfortunately. I can't even manage to get "eighteenth century" through. It is consistently changed to "18th century". Ick. Awadewit | talk 16:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood. The point about picking battles is a fair one. I don't want to break all of the rules, just some of them. I made the change because I think that the timeline is likely to be one of the most useful features to the intended audience and should be a bit more visible. I'm not willing to go to war over it either. Simmaren 18:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I see (nineteenth century→19th century) what you mean. People tend to forget that Emerson's quote - "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - begins with the word "foolish". I wonder if this habit is a holdover from the days when hard disk storage space was expensive and condensing the character count in prose was important? Simmaren (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but it is so inelegant, in my opinion, and not supported by any publishing style manual I'm aware of. Unfortunately, it is now supported by the Wikipedia MOS. :( It is one of those things I've had to learn to let go. By the way, I loved it when the script eliminated the hyphen from the compound adjective! Introducing grammatical errors for the sake of century consistency. Ah, what a world we live in.
Did you see Reception history of Jane Austen on the main page? It was a WP:DYK. Awadewit | talk 15:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. Thanks for pointing it out. A warm feeling. :) Simmaren (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Gandalf the Grey (in The Fellowship of the Ring [film version]): "They are coming." People are starting to notice. Simmaren (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, um, I nominated it. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. However, it was picked for the pictured slot!

I was going to read through JA today and do so more copy editing and then submit it to the contest. Is there anything substantial or insubstantial you wanted to add? Awadewit | talk 15:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] Please go ahead. [2] If possible, I would like to run down that reference to Henry James' initial favorable view of JA's work, and correct it if it's unsupported. I plan to visit the Newberry later today to look at Watt's introduction. I don't think we need to hold submission for that, however. Simmaren (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's correct. I'll try to find a reference to it as well. It must be somewhere in our stacks of books! Awadewit | talk 17:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Found it! It was in the Southam 150-page introduction, not in the Southam excerpts from James. Awadewit | talk 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. It originally came from Watt, "Introduction," 7. Watt, standing on his dignity as a full professor of English at Stanford, did not himself give sources, so I'm glad you found something better. Simmaren (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And there it went. Not even two weeks. :) Awadewit | talk 07:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had to see for myself, didn't I. You told me so. :) Fundamentalists! Simmaren (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It didn't take much more time than that for "Freindship" to transmute to "Friendship," your editorial note notwithstanding. (: Amazing. Simmaren (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least someone changed that one back. Awadewit | talk 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations

We need more citations for the first paragraph of the lead, especially the "best-loved" kind of stuff. Awadewit | talk 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added a couple of "citation needed" tags for quotations. Awadewit | talk 18:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just done the same. I'll try to "fill in" this weekend. I tried to identify those statements that I thought needed to be supported through a citation in place rather than depending on a cite at the end of the paragraph. This is a matter of judgment and I may have been too picky (or not picky enough). I'm reacting to what I've seen recently at FAC. Obviously, we should not have a citation for every sentence, but I am still a little uneasy about the numerous instances where all of the references for a paragraph come at the end. Do you have a feel for whether this practice (which I am used to seeing in historical writing) is likely to raise questions? Simmaren (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I'm still not enamored by the lead, but I think we'll have to keep revising that as we go. Awadewit | talk 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Austen family coat of arms

Churchh added an image of the Austen family coat of arms to this article today. While it is attractive and for that reason I would like to keep it, it is irrelevant to an article about Jane Austen unless it can be shown from reliable sources that this coat of arms was an entitlement of and used by George Austen, Jane's father, or (perhaps) one of Jane's brothers during her lifetime. I have read a mass of biographical material in the last ten months (see the footnotes and list of references) and have not noticed a reference to a family coat of arms. It is not mentioned in the family biography published by her grand-nephews Richard Arthur and William in 1913 (or in the modern revision of that work by Le Fay). It seems unlikely that relatives as concerned with the image of the family as her grand-nephews appear to have been would have omitted referring to a family coat of arms if one then existed. Is there anyone who can help us with a reliable reference making a connection between the coat of arms and Jane Austen or her immediate family? Simmaren (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we also leave a message on Churchh's talk page, just in case s/he isn't watching this page. Awadewit | talk 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Done contemporaneously. Thinking as you do, that was the second thing I did. Simmaren (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's listed in Rietstap's Armorial, and furthermore, it is actually mentioned on page 96 of the 1989 edition of Jane Austen: A Family Record:

"About the time of Henry Austen's marriage with his first Wife his father set up a carriage which, not unnaturally, bore on its pannels the family crest: namely, a Stag on a Crown Mural."

Churchh (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the guy who runs this website probably knows more about the technical and historical details of heraldry than all three of us put together. Churchh (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. The same quote appears on page 106 of the 2004 edition of A Family Record, but it's not indexed as such. I'll add the information to the footnote. Simmaren (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blazon

Is there really much point to including the whole heraldic blazon in the image caption? To those who know heraldic terminology, it would only convey a few subtle points of information not already directly included in the image itself, and to those who don't know heraldic terminology, I imagine it would simply be confusing. Churchh (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was nice little descriptor for the caption. Perhaps it would prompt people to learn more about heraldry? Awadewit | talk 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's a difference between "The coat of arms of Jane Austen's family" and "The Austen family coat of arms" -- the latter wording could be interpreted as supporting the unfortunate misconception that surnames are directly and inherently associated with coats of arms (without any need to trace genealogical connections). Churchh (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me - why don't you insert a hidden note explaining that by the image? I know that some copy editors will want to reduce the verbiage by switching it back. Awadewit | talk 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV questioned

Harris was not attractive—he was a large, plain-looking man who spoke little, stuttered when he did speak, was aggressive in conversation, and almost completely tactless.

Does this meet NPOV standards? Where are all the sources that say all of that?

BMR789 (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that that portrait was made in 1805, three years after proposing to JA. There's more info here, which does refer to a speech defect. This page says "he was awkward in manner and a stammerer and liked to trick and tease his sisters", and was five years younger than JA. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is good to keep in mind that portraits are not photos. They were often painted to flatter their patrons. Awadewit | talk 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the Anne of Cleves syndrome. :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Mary Lloyd, who told her daughter Caroline the story (in Deidre Le Faye's biography of Austen): Mr Wither was very plain in person - awkward, & even uncouth in manner..." (137). Awadewit | talk 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The point of view expressed in the description is not "neutral," but it is the point of view of the source(s), not the point of view of the editor(s) of this article. This passage is carefully footnoted so that readers can check information like this if they wish to. If we have misrepresented what the sources have to say, then call us (me) to account. I've made mistakes before. If other reliable sources suggest that Harris Bigg-Wither can best be described as a handsome, articulate and tactful person, please add the information about the disagreement and the additional sources. Simmaren (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to avoid these issues in the future, I have attributed the description of Harris Bigg-Wither. The sources can be checked to verify the attributions. Simmaren (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Verification needed

It has also been suggested that Jane Austen did not like Bath. David Baldock, owner of the Jane Austen Centre in Bath agrees that it was probably the uprooting from her comfortable and secure rural environment which was the source of her unhappiness. - I have removed this statement because it needs verification from a printed, reliable source. Awadewit | talk 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Many have drawn inferences from the fact that Anne Elliot of Persuasion "persisted in a silent disinclination for Bath", and there later was a story circulating in her family that when Jane Austen was suddenly told of her parents' plans for her father to retire to Bath, she fainted... Churchh (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That fainting story is greatly exaggerated. I have the details somewhere. I am still working on trying to verify this. Awadewit | talk 02:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Portraits

Please do not replace the watercolor portrait of Jane Austen at the top of the article. This is the only full portrait of Jane Austen with any claims to authenticity. The rest either do not show her face or were commissioned after Austen's death by her family. See the footnote accompanying the portrait and the essay on "Portraits" in Jane Austen in Context. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 05:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:Awadewit]

I thought the universal standard was that the top image in an article should be right-aligned. I was unaware that there was a provision which applied specifically to the direction a person in a portrait was facing. Sorry for the error. -Severa (!!!) 01:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. There are so many rules in the MOS that I don't think anybody knows them all. Besides, they change all of the time, anyway! Awadewit | talk 01:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please read the caption the way I had it more carefully, this portrait was based on that sketch. In my opinion is much better quality, and having the image come before the text on the left like that looks very strange (that MOS exception shouldn't apply to the lead image). Your call. shoeofdeath (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Having a portrait drawn from real life is far superior to having one drawn many years later. There is no reason to "puff" Austen using a false portrait. We are trying to be as accurate as possible with this image - whether we like the image or not is immaterial. The essay I referred you to (as well as others) discusses how these later portraits were altered to make Austen more acceptable to a Victorian audience. It is unacceptable for Wikipedia to continue to foster those Victorian aims. We need to adhere to WP:NPOV in selecting images as well as in our writing.

Images on the left do not look strange to me. I think it looks far stranger to have Austen staring lovingly down at my phone, as she does when she is placed on the right-hand side. It is an established art historical principle not to place portraits so that their subjects look into the gutter of a book or off of the page - it leads a reader's eyes away from the text. Wikipedia has wisely adopted this principle in its MOS. Therefore, I firmly believe we should follow the MOS in this instance, not just because it is the MOS, but because the rule is founded on solid aesthetic principles. Awadewit | talk 05:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok, I'm not going to argue about the accuracy of the portrait (although apparently the original sketch wasn't very accurate either). I don't normally have any problem with left-alligned images, but I do feel that aesthetically her looking off the screen is much less awkward than her image coming before the intro text. I'm not going to change it back or anything, just my opinion. Maybe it's because my phone is on the other side of the room ; ). shoeofdeath (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the now-archived talk, I actually kind of like Image:Jane-Austen-portrait-victorian-engraving.png. The Cassandra Austen sketch is indisputably authentic, but it's not really very satisfactory, and some of Jane Austen's surviving relatives in 1870 who remembered her weren't too happy with it then. Almost the best you can say about it, is that it's lousy, but authentically lousy... ;) Churchh (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is, it doesn't matter if the portrait isn't "satisfactory" and the only relatives alive in 1870 who remembered were, I believe, five years old when she died. Authentic is always better than enhanced for public consumption, which is precisely what the 1870 portrait is. A reliable encyclopedia does not present a "beautified" past (think of the anti-feminist implications). Awadewit | talk 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Anna Lefroy was in her mid-twenties when Jane Austen died, while James Edward Austen-Leigh was almost 20 -- and if you don't like their memories, then you'll have to toss out most of the 1870 Memoir. Anna Lefroy had more sources of knowledge for what Jane Austen looked like than anyone now living does, and she considered the Cassandra front-view portrait to be "hideously unlike" Jane Austen. Probably in Anna's eyes the semi-beautifying process of the engraving for the Memoir compensated for the uglification present in Cassandra's portrait. Churchh (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I misremembered some facts. Going back to the scholarship is always the answer here. I mentioned the "Portraits" article by Margaret Kirkham in Jane Austen in Context at the top of this thread. It discusses all of the possible JA portraits. In a section labeled "Imaginary Portraits", we have a discussion of the "Andrews portrait". I quote extensively:

J. E. Austen-Leigh and his collaborators found Cassandra's unsigned sketch unsatisfactory and commissioned James Andrews of Maidenhead to create a new image of Jane Austen to be engraved for the 1870 Memoir. It was meant to make Aunt Jane presentable to the Victorian public. The Andrews watercolour drawing softens the features and changes the attitude. The arms are no longer crossed defiantly; the eyes have lost their harsh stare, and the stick-like chair of the original is replaced by a later, more expensive-looking one. The Lizars steel engraving completes the process of creating a decently decorous, Victorian Austen: the eyes look larger and still milder, the mouth becomes full-lipped and the expression gentle. Cassy Esten Austen's comment is acute: 'It is a very pleasing, sweet face, - tho', I confess, to not thinking it much like the original' [emphasis in original]. It was, perhaps, an appropriate frontispiece for the Memoir. The anachronism of the Andrews portrait strikes those, like Helen Denman, who think it 'charming'. Claudia Johnson speaks of its 'gruesome quaintness'." (76)

An inauthentic portrait so obviously altered to fit Victorian times, even labeled as an "imaginary portrait" in the scholarship, should not be presented by Wikipedia as a portrait of Jane Austen. I hope we can agree on that. Awadewit | talk 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My (undergraduate) training as a historian compels me to agree with Awadewit—an authentic portrait that is a "bad" likeness is preferable to the later engravings, which were in effect propaganda for a particular point of view about Austen, as long as the article is clear that the likeness is not a good one. The footnote to the image makes this clear as well as informing the reader of the picture's provenance and reasons for thinking it is authentic. Given that the subject of Austen portraits is fraught with controversy, perhaps (don't shoot, Awadewit!) future work on this article could include a sub-article on Austen portraits? The topic awaits its H. W. Janson. Simmaren (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just turn the protrait? it looks horrible on the left.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 14:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it looks horrible on the left? According to WP:MOS#Images, right-facing images should be left-aligned. This is based on fundamental aesthetic principles. If you pick up an art history textbook, for example, you won't find a portrait facing into the gutter or off of the page. If the JA portrait were on the right, she would be looking lovingly at my phone. We want to direct readers' eyes to the text, not off of the page. Awadewit | talk 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

About 99% of wiki articles have the first image on the right. My first reaction when seeing this was to move the image until i saw the note and ended up here. It looks awful because i'm used to reading from left to right, western world style, and here you start with the image and then with the text. Books never have an image on the first page and then text on the second, so why should Wikipedia? I don't see why the image can't be turned over.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 12:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for not "flipping" the image is the same as the reason for not substituting one version or another of the 1870 engraving: it would not be the sketch that Cassandra made of her sister. In this case, historical accuracy should trump aesthetics. Aesthetic judgments vary from person to person, as the discussion above attests, but there is only one accurate image of this sketch. I very much appreciate the fact that you've raised the question for discussion before doing something to the image. Others may wish to comment as well. Simmaren (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second my support for not flipping the image of Austen. Doing so would misrepresent the artwork - again, something Wikipedia should not be a party to. Wikipedia should try to represent artwork as faithfully as possible. Wherever I have seen images left-aligned on Wikipedia, it is because the image is a right-facing portrait of some kind, so this article is in line with that practice. Awadewit | talk 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i see your points, and as my only argument is aesthetics, i rest my case. Thanks for the explanations.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

We have decided that an infobox only clutters up the top of the page. It does not offer good information in a concise way, as an infobox should. It offers obvious information (birthdate, deathdate) and debatable information (influences). We have therefore removed it. Awadewit | talk 05:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Simmaren (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For a sensible discussion of the topic of infoboxes, see: Article on the Use and Abuse of Templates and Infoboxes, by Geogre [added by Simmaren (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may

Hello. There are a few aesthetic issues in the article I believe. Small things, such as images placed in such a way as to clutter one paragraph, etc. I am hoping to change these by sizing the image, or switching sides, etc., but as I go on, if there is a problem, please let me know. Stanselmdoc (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The article can certainly be improved in all sorts of ways. These kinds of issues are always up for discussion, but because aesthetic judgments are very subjective, it would be preferable for you to suggest the changes you would like to make on this Talk page so that they can be discussed and a consensus reached before they are made. As you can see from the discussion above under "Neutral Point of View" and "Portraits" and some of the archived discussions, some of these issues can generate a lot of heat. Thanks for expressing your intentions before taking action - that is very much appreciated. Simmaren (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Images and Info Boxes

I do not think it wise to divert from what Wikipedia does regarding other biographical articles. I read the arguments above both on the images and the Info Box. I have to say I am a little disappointed in the way this article is shaping up actually. Wasn't the point of the overhaul of the article to improve upon it? First, MoS states, "Start an article with a right-aligned image." This is plain and clear and has no Exception beneath it. The exception listed occurs under "Generally, right alignment is preferred to left." Also, MoS states that right-facing pictures should be left-aligned "when this does not interfere with navigation or other elements." I would argue that purposely disturbing the beginning text of an article is interfering with "other elements", namely, the beginning of the article. Just check out these right-facing characters: Alexander Pope, John Law, Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Haydn, William Blake, Johann Sebastian Bach, Mozart, Jonathan Swift, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Claudio Monteverdi, Blaise Pascal, Sir Isaac Newton, Leopold I, George Herbert, Lord Byron, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Raphael, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Emile Zola, Guillaume Apollinaire, Francis Beaumont, Anne Bronte, Robert Browning, and the list can go on and on. Although it is a nice thought to have right-facing portraits on the left, it seems to be in Wikipedia’s interest to have all first portraits aligned right. Just look at ANY biographical article. I have found zero of them that begin with a left-aligned picture, regardless of the direction the portrait is facing.

Also, it is against MoS to have subheadings cut off from their text by a picture, i.e., Life, Juvenilia, Adult Life (not cut off, but interrupted), Early Novels, and Published author. An average reader could miss Juvenilia, Early Novels, and Published author at best, especially because the subheadings are not included in the Table of Contents. MoS states, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." By simply moving the picture a paragraph down or aligning it to the opposite side, the article’s aesthetic and readability could improve dramatically.

Lastly, regarding Info Boxes, I also have to disagree, though admittedly not as adamantly. To use Simmaren’s argument against one, "We have decided that an infobox only clutters up the top of the page." This might be true if the portrait remains left-aligned, but if the portrait were placed into an Info Box, it would probably look fine. "It does not offer good information in a concise way, as an infobox should." On the contrary, I can’t think of a better reference for readers who are quickly looking for a specific piece of information on a person without having to peruse the entire article. "It offers obvious information (birthdate, deathdate) and debatable information (influences)." I think it is slightly presumptuous to think that the information provided in the Info Box is "obvious". An Info Box can offer locations of birth and death, occupation, nationality, genres, writing period, debut works, subjects, literary movements, and yes, influences (both who influenced the author, and who the author influenced), etc. All of this information is certainly NOT "obvious" or "debatable". Stanselmdoc (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right that the MoS deprecates lefthand pictures at the start of articles, but personally I think this is a mistake, and would support anyone ignoring, or changing that rule. The second point probably depends on settings, and should be sorted out as well as it can be. I disagree stongly on the infobox - these are usually a waste of spece on a long, well-illustrated article. The information (as usual) divides pretty neatly into that given in the opening sentences, and that which is much too complicated to give in a couple of words. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Stanselmdoc, does your disappointment at the way the article is shaping up center on the graphical layout/aesthetic issues you discuss above or does it also derive from the text (quality of writing, quality of research, scope and depth, etc.)? Simmaren (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the wrong person to talk to about WP:MOS; Awadewit is much more respectful of it than I am. No doubt she will want to carry on the discussion on this point. I am a lawyer and (perhaps as a result) believe that (i) rules (laws) have purposes that must be served when they are applied and (ii) if a particular application of a rule (law) doesn't serve those purposes, the rule should not be followed mechanically. This is why our legal system has judges and juries, to make those judgments. In a universe, like Wikipedia, without judges and juries to decide these matters (at least outside of WP:PR and WP:FAC), it is my responsibility to follow the rules with special care, recognizing that there are good reasons for them that apply in most cases, but not without thought. I'm not suggesting that you haven't thought carefully about the points you've made, only that citing the rules without more doesn't carry that much weight with me personally. It would be more effective with me personally to say something like "I hate the left-aligned first image, it's ugly (awkward, interferes with the accessibility of the article, will turn away readers, will prevent the article from passing WP:FAC, etc)." Clearly, I need a minder, and Awadewit and others keep me in line. Simmaren (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the heading you've mentioned are hard to find because of their placement in the article. "Life" is a second level heading and should float above the first part of the article, as it does.The other headings should be accessible to all readers but those who are skimming hastily. They are likely to miss more than the headings. That said, I'm not opposed to experimentation to see if there is another better layout. Simmaren (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
We experimented with a "Contents" box that had third level headings in it. It made navigating the article easier but was so tall that it left a very large amount of white space between the lead and the beginning of the article proper. Do you know if there is a way to reprogram or script the "Contents" box so that its contents appear in two columns. If this were possible, it would help. Simmaren (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You know what I think about infoboxes from the comment above. Simmaren (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Simmaren, to work backwards, I would say, (and MoS says, but as you dislike the references to it, I'll leave them out for now haha), did we try putting the TOC on the right-hand side? That is what is recommended for left-aligned pictures that get in the way of the TOC. It might look a little better. Next, to return to your first point, yes, it is pretty much only layout issues. And even if it weren't, I am unfortunately heavily constrained on my time, and would be able to put in very little effort into improving content issues. As for the headings, I have to say that is what I am most adamant about. I think it utterly tacky and difficult to find, particularly for younger readers and skimmers. (Here is another place I would say something about MoS haha) JohnBod, I believe that if you have a problem with the regulations of the MoS, then that is the place to take it up. In fact, if you were to propose an amendment to it, I might support it. However, to say "I think that's wrong and we should just ignore it" is not a very proactive stance. In the meantime, the MoS has been created in the hopes that Wikipedia could have some kind of uniformity and system by which to edit articles. If you think it's wrong, work to change THAT page, I don't think it wise to ignore it on one pithy article that should fall under the MoS. Also, Simmaren, I feel your pain. I'm a law publisher. ;) And I'm not the greatest fan of rules in the MoS either. But just like I'm not the greatest fan of certain rules and laws in real life, I still follow them. And if I have a problem with them, I don't ignore the rule, I work to change it while still obeying the rule. Stanselmdoc (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Some responses:

The MOS is only a guideline. The box at the top of the MOS says "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors are advised to follow it, but it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception." That is what Simmaren and I are attempting to do. Awadewit | talk 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Left-aligned portraits: Of all the pages Stanselmdoc listed, only two are FAs. Joseph Priestley, also an FA, has a left-aligned right-facing portrait. This very issue was brought up at the FAC and it was decided for the very reasons discussed here (aesthetic principles, etc.) to retain that arrangement. Awadewit | talk 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I have not thought much about the article's layout yet. I have mostly been working on the article's content. I hesitate to work much on the layout at this point since Simmaren and I are currently working on another section entitled "Style and themes". Whatever layout the article demands will ultimately have to incorporate that section as well. I suppose that I am not inclined to work on the details of the layout until we have the content nailed down - but that is just the way I work. Awadewit | talk 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse trying to move the TOC over to the right-hand side - let's see what that looks like. Awadewit | talk 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I think that "FA status" arguments is a weak argument (because there are plenty of non-FAs that are just as good), I do understand the left-aligned picture argument. I still think it looks hideous and unencyclopedic, but that's probably because I put a whole lot less emphasis than others in the demands of artwork. If there is a serious determination not to move the picture to the right, I definitely think we should try the TOC on the right side. I still think the lack of an Info Box is also unencyclopedic, and I think it looks worse not to have one, but again, it appears the argument of "it's not required" works well enough. However, Awadewit mentioned that content issues are still being worked on, and that should probably take precedence over layout for now, so I think we could just let this go and bring it up later when most of the content adjustments are made. I will try to help as much as I can with that, but like I said before, I am pressed for time, and layout issues are easier and quicker for me to handle. Thanks! Stanselmdoc (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Stanselmdoc's first point is correct: if an article's lead has an image, the image should be aligned to the right, regardless of the orientation of the image. This is a long-established convention. His other two points, however, are completely debatable. Indeed, I would disagree with both of them. Headers need not start on the left edge of the page and infoboxes are certainly not necessary or even preferred for all biographical articles. Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "FA status" is a weak argument, as those are the only articles we can be sure have been rigorously checked against the MOS.
I'm not sure why Stanselmdoc thinks that the left-aligned portrait looks "unencyclopedic". Like Stanselmdoc, I take aesthetic principles into consideration when laying out a page and aesthetic principles demand that right-facing portraits do not look off of the page (as I stated above, it is odd to have Austen looking at my phone). Having a right-facing portrait at the right-hand side of the page leads readers' eyes off of the page. This is a well-established principle used by art historians in their own books and wikipedia uses it as well (see WP:MOS#Images). It would be most odd if we followed this principle for the rest of the page, but not for the top.
I would also emphasize that not all "long-established conventions" are correct and that since other biography articles have left-aligned portraits and that since this alignment agrees with aesthetic principles, we should stick with it.
Again, I'm not sure why having an infobox is "unencyclopedic". Fields such as "occupation", "influences", etc. tend to distort information rather than succinctly present it. Awadewit | talk 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion: No info box. Use the expanded TOC aligned right at the beginning using:

  {| align="right"
  | __TOC__
  |}

--198.185.18.207 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let’s get away for a minute from what we disagree on. I apologise for the long comment below. Some editors will think Info Boxes useful and some will think they're not. As they are not a requirement, the consensus on this page is not to have an Info Box. Maybe sometime in the future the opposite opinion will become the majority, but it's not super important right now.

On to a clarification: I never suggested that Headers "should start at the left-hand side of the page". I stated that Headers should not be separated from their text. (To use the dreaded MoS: Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location.)

A new expansion: To focus on the TOC, I think it important to align it right and expand it. Currently, the links are from "Life" directly to "Reception". Reception of her life? Her works should have a separate Heading, and not just be confined to subheadings. While I admire the effort of including her literary works within her personal life, her works are simply too important to limit them. Both her life and works are equally important, and someone who cares only about her works should be able to quickly navigate to them. Please consider this adjustment to the article, for it is a very confusing read right now. It moves: life, works, life, works, life, life, works, life, works. It would an easier and smoother read to move it to: life, life, life, life, life, works, works, works, works. A timeline of Jane Austen can certainly switch back and forth between the two, but the article on her should be consistently one topic or the other.

I would like to point out, as I mentioned earlier, that we are still writing an entire section on Austen's works. It will be entitled "Style and themes". What you see in the article is hardly the extent of what will be there on her works. It is what we thought was important to include in the biography section. This is why I often leave layout decisions to the end. If you want to see our messy draft, look here. That page will become its own article, which we will then summarize in the Austen article, just as we did with Reception history of Jane Austen. Awadewit | talk 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, to that on which we still disagree. Left-aligned images at the beginning of an article are unencyclopedic because my eyes do not follow "where the picture is facing". My eyes look for text, and English reads left-to-right, so I expect words to be the first thing I see, not a picture. To be frank, I don’t care where the picture is looking – she’s dead. She does not even know what a phone is. What a person looks like (and where he/she is looking) is secondary to me. It's two different sides of the same argument. Awadewit, you are defending the integrity of the portrait (which I understand), and I am defending the integrity of the content of the article.

I'm tired of repeating the same arguments - I am arguing for following aesthetic principles here (I thought you were, too).Awadewit | talk 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What have we decided about using MoS? Awadewit uses it to defend the left-aligned decision, Johnbod wants to change it completely, and Simmaren puts no stock in it at all. As a result, I thought we dropped the whole argument, because if we were actually going by what MoS states, the picture would be on the right side, since the very first rule under images is "Start an article with a right-aligned image", a rule which would take precedence over the Exception later in the list that doesn't include the first picture of an article.

The MOS is also a guideline, as it states; it also supports the left-alignment for right-facing portraits. Since other articles do this (Joseph Priestley, Mary Martha Sherwood, John Boydell), I am comfortable with this decision. Awadewit | talk 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe "FA-status" is a weak argument is because there are FAs that would support my position (Douglas Adams, Samuel Beckett, etc) and the opposing position. Using "FA-status" bothers me because both sides can find articles to support their argument, so the use of "FA-status" is moot. Awadewit, you first said that the proper use of images is a "well-established principle", but in your next paragraph you argue that "not all long-established conventions are correct" (referring to Kaldari’s comment). So it appears you’re willing to pick and choose just as much as I am. We’re just choosing different principles on which to place importance. Stanselmdoc (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that is was a well-established aesthetic principle, which is different from an arbitrary MOS convention. We seem to be at a bit of standstill. I am frankly a bit tired of all of this and would prefer to get back to writing the content of the article so that we can get add those substantial sections on Austen's works! What do you propose to do? Awadewit | talk 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

- I suggest that we all take a deep breathe and take a look at the bigger picture. This article is a long way from anything I would regard as completed -- there is at least another major section to finish researching and to write. Awadewit and I are working on that section now, as best we can, but all of this discussion on layout/format/aesthetics is distracting and unnecessary at this time. Stanselmdoc and Kalderi, can we put this discussion on hold as premature and commit to reconvene the debating society when the article is closer to substantive completion and before it is submitted for peer review? I can't speak for Awadewit (or anyone else for that matter) but this seems to me to be a sensible way to move forward. Simmaren (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Simmaren that this particular debate (over images) should be dropped for now. Both in order to cool down, and because I was going through the MoS archives for more advice (yes, I know, no one here likes MoS), but even the contributors there don’t seem to be able to choose which should have precedence over the other. In fact, I would encourage you to bring it up with MoS and ask for a definitive answer, citing the principle of portraits.

I am not against the MOS. My only issues with the MOS are that is self-contradictory and that is constantly changing - but that is another issue entirely. :) Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

THAT we can DEFINITELY agree on. :) Stanselmdoc (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, I apologize for steaming you up. Indeed, I had no intention of getting so riled up myself. But I noticed that the three articles you submitted as examples of other articles that use left-aligning images are three articles on which you yourself have contributed extensively, and you yourself were involved in the switching of the image from one side to the other. While there is no problem with this, I encourage you to find sources you were not directly involved in the image formatting to support your stance.

The reason I mentioned Joseph Priestley first is that there were quite a few editors working on that article and consensus was achieved for the left-aligned portrait. You are free to read the discussion there, as well - it is in the archived talk pages. I just used those examples because I happened to know about them off-hand. I agree it would be better if I had others, but I really just want to write! Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful for the time and effort that you two are putting into expanding the content of an article, and your work here is pretty amazing. However, every editor has different fields on which he prioritizes. I like to focus on layout, and as it is, saying "wait wait, it's not a completely done article. Wait until we're through" is not how Wikipedia works. Many different issues of an article can (and should) be worked on concurrently. I think the layout of Austen's Life section can be adjusted (this, stemming from a discussion on the Table of Contents which I think should be continued), and I don’t think that it should be blackballed until you two say it’s "ready" for others to form an opinion on it. If you weren’t ready to have someone make suggestions for improving it, you should not have submitted it. I would like to reorganize some of it, and I would appreciate a good-faith look at it.

I don't think we are blackballing you at all. One practical reason for waiting to work on the layout is that it will have to change once more sections are added. Images will be added and removed, moved to different parts of the article, etc. I would hate to have you spend a great deal of time achieving a wonderful layout for this "version" of the article, only to see it ruined once we add huge chunks of text. However, if you want to do this, that is fine. I have already said that we should try your idea regarding the TOC and if you want to fiddle with the rest of the article, that is fine with me. I don't think anyone has suggested your efforts wouldn't be "in good faith" - we just want to be efficient. Perhaps too efficient, eh? Awadewit | talk 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the sandbox on Austen’s style and themes. I do hope that that will become its own article, and only a summary of it will remain in the Austen article. But it looks really intense. Good job. Stanselmdoc (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

slavery

When jane Austen was writing, the biggest political debate goping on was probably that on slavery and the slave trade. IN some books on the slave trade it is said that Austen approved of slavery; others deny. Can we have some referenced material on this debate, which is very important.Johncmullen1960 (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The most relevant scholarship on this is Edward Said's commentary on Mansfield Park and the various responses to it. Simmaren and I are currently working on a "Style and themes" section for the page. When it is completed, it will have at least a paragraph on this topic, I promise. However, I do not know how soon this will be. It is difficult to write a condensed version of such a section. We will do our best to get this section up soon. Awadewit | talk 16:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I really hope it won't give Said undue prominence, because his screed was more or less a personal attack on Jane Austen that was actually pretty much completely irrelevant, since it mainly slagged her off for not being a different person differently situated in the society of her time. In fact, Said mainly used Jane Austen as a pure straw-man in his voluminously compendious verbose political arguments about How The West Is Always Wrong About Everything, and in order to make people feel guilty about taking a simple pleasure in reading the works of Austen. I really wonder how much influence Said's "scholarship" now has outside the involuted closed little navel-gazing inbred circle of Post-Everythingist Studies. I would say that Said belongs more on "Reception history of Jane Austen" than on this article... Churchh (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope your scholarship will include consulting Jane Austen in the Context of Abolition by Gabrielle White (Palgrave Macmillan).

I will look at it, yes. Thank you. Awadewit | talk 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To see the clearest discussion of slavery in Jane Austen, look at the "governessing-trade" section in Emma. Churchh (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Said's view and the various responses to it are still the most important views in published scholarship on Austen and slavery; and those are the sources we use for this article per WP:V. We will not be using Said exclusively, but his arguments regarding Austen were the catalyst for a discussion of slavery in Austen in the first place. That is why they belong here. We cannot rely on primary sources, as you suggest, as that would be original research. However, please be assured that we are doing extensive and careful research and will do our best to represent the wide-ranging scholarship on Austen. Some of those scholars of course mention this scene in Emma. This article will represent the academic view of Austen since literary critics are the experts when it comes to Austen and wikipedia relies on the published work of experts for its articles. Awadewit | talk 15:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you hadn't indiscriminately amalgamated my two comments, which were in reply to two different individuals, and had quite distinct and seperate purposes. When directly replying to Johncmullen1960, I wasn't proposing anything about the article, but merely directing him to a passage in Jane Austen which is clearer than the rather fragmentary and ambiguous indications in Mansfield Park. As for my reply to you, I'm by no means the only person who finds that Said's main use of Jane Austen is to erect her as an anachronistic strawman figure on which he can vent all of his personal vitrolic hatred of Western civilization. Among many other relevant facts, Jane Austen as an author followed a personal principle of artistic integrity in which she barely touched on most types of phenomena which she had not had opportunities to personally experience or witness in her life -- that's why she was extremely reticent in portraying conversations between males with no women present, extremely reticent in describing the internal thought processes of males, and extremely reticent in portraying servant characters except as they interact with women of the "genteel" classes. Jane Austen never saw even one single slave at any time over the course of her entire life, so how was she supposed to say anything substantively concrete and factual about slaves which wouldn't have been merely plagiarized from some book -- much less satisfy her own strict personal principles of authorial integrity?? Furthermore, "circulating-library novels" of the type Jane Austen was writing were considered by serious literary types to be basically the Harlequin / Mills-and-Boon romance novels of the day (i.e. trashy light reading mainly for women), and the participation of women in political affairs was generally disapproved of -- so that personal pontifications on controversial political issues by female novel authors would not have been widely welcomed among readers or critics, and would certainly not have increased a novel's chances of commercial success. Furthermore, Jane Austen was fully aware that her Tory-leaning family would eventually read every word that she published.

Under these circumstances, it's truly absurd to expect Jane Austen to have said much more about slavery in her six novels than she did. The topic of slavery and Jane Austen might be worthy of some minor discussion here -- but I really question whether Said in fact does have broad lasting influence among those who are trying to better understand Jane Austen's writing and times (as opposed to Post-Everythingists and people trying to score anachronistic political points). Said belongs in the "Recetption history of Jane Austen" article, not this one. Churchh (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The international slave trade (though not slavery itself) was actually outlawed by both the U.S. and the U.K. in 1807-1808, several years before Jane Austen published her first book (though enforcement of the ban was spotty at first). Churchh (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to postpone a discussion of this topic until the article actually contains something to discuss. Once it does, we can see whether there is actually any disagreement. Awadewit | talk 16:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Northanger Abbey

I think the reference to NA in the lead section is a little ambiguous - those who don't know could read it to mean that she wrote it after the previous 4 mentioned. The publishing history of NA is made clearer in the body of the article but I wonder if the lead section could be re-expressed a little to remove the ambiguity.Sterry2607 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - we will fix this. Awadewit | talk 15:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

images, TOC and infobox

I changed the article earlier to the standard layout, and was reverted with an explanation that MOS suggests that the non-standard layout is preferable when the main image is facing right. I have started a discussion at the MOS talk page with the hope of removing that suggestion from MOS, but I will try to explain my reasoning here too.

Wikipedia articles aren't stand-alone works. They're a part of a wider work, the encyclopedia, and as such are not free to be formatted and laid out at will. The purpose is to provide information, not to please the eye. The standard layout, the TOC, and, yes, the infobox, are navigation/information tools, and they're not a part of the article per se. Their consistent placement, especially in the intro section, is crucial for usability of the articles. Placement of dates of birth and death is another example of this and the convention to bold the subject of the article is yet another.

Remember, not every user visits the article to read the entire text. Many just want to find a piece of information, and that becomes difficult if things are moved around. Other users are bots which either maintain the article, or use it to gather information. The editors of an article should not assume the authority to override site-wide consensus on how in-article navigation elements should be treated, no more than they can change the links in the toolbox on the left, or move the Wikipedia logo to another corner, if its placement doesn't follow traditional rule of paper layout.

In short, consistency overrides prettiness. Zocky | picture popups 03:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the purpose of the article is to present information, but it is also its purpose to present that information in the most attractive way possible. That is why the picture is left-aligned. It follows aesthetic principles - as laid out at WP:MOS#Images and followed by art historians in their publications. We should not sacrifice aesthetics for arbitrary rules. Having the image on the left does not prevent readers from accessing information. I would also like to point out that we are following the MOS here and that infoboxes are optional - consensus has not been established to include infoboxes in articles. Thanks again and I will look in on the MOS discussion. Awadewit | talk 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)