![]() | This page 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. |
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)
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)
The archived talk page you directed me to was not reassuring, actually. Sills bend ( talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the friendship/freindship debate, The six-volume Oxford Illustrated Jane Austen uses "friendship". The Penguin ClassicJuvinilia 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
"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)
The see also section contains links to images of Jane Austen's family tree rather than a collection of links to related articles. I propose switching it to either a Gallery or Family tree to better reflect its contents. I prefer Gallery since this would open a space to place other related images if we so necessary. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 02:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't like how the "See also" section is used, this section is generally reserved a list of links to articles related to the subject. Perhaps "Family tree" would be more appropriate. There is also another option to using either links or galleries, that is to use a HTML chart of Jane Austen's family tree (see below). I used the {{ Chart}} template along with some custom HTML for the show/hide. The colors are default, but I can change that to whatever best suits the article. Another feature is that you can use the full wiki-markup along with images. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)(UTC)
William Austen (1701-1737) | Rebbecca Austen (née Hampson) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philadelphia (1730-1792) | Tyoe Saul Hancock (d. 1775) | Rev. George (1731-1805) | Cassandra Leigh (1739-1827) | Leonora (1732-1783) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jean Capot de Feuillide (guillotined 1794) | Eliza (Elizabeth) (1761-1813) | Henry Austen | Rev. James (1765-1819) | George (1766-1838) | Edward (1767-1852) | Hentry (1771-1850) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cassandra (1773-1845) |
Francis (1774-1865) | Jane (1775-1817) |
Charles (1779-1852) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rev. George (1731-1805) | Cassandra Leigh (1739-1827) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rev. James (1765-1819) | Mary Lloyd (1771-1843) | EdwardKnight (1767-1852) | Elizabeth Bridges | (Sir) Francis (1774-1865) | Mary Gibson | Frances Palmer | Charles (1779-1852) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rev James Edward Austen-Leigh (1798-1874) Caroline Mary | Fanny (1793-1882) Edward (1794-1879) George (1795-1867) Henry (1797-1843) | William (1798-1873) Elizabeth (1800-1884) Marianne (1801-1896) Charles (1803-1867) | Louisa (1804-1889) Cassandra Jane (1806-1842) Brook John (1808-1878) | Mary Jane (1807-1836) Francis William (1809-1858) Henry Edgar (1811-1854) George (1812-1903) | Cassandra Eliza (1814-1849) Herbert Grey (1815-1888) Elizabeth (1817-1830) Catherine Anne (1818-1877) | Edward Thomas (1820-1908) Frances Sophia (1821-1904) Cholmely (1823-1824) | Cassandra Ester (1808-1897) Harriet Jane (1810-1865) Frances Palmer (1812-1882) Elizabeth (b. & d. 1814) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anna (1793-1872) | Harriet Palmer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rev. James Edward Austen-Leigh (1798-1874) Caroline Mary | Charles John (1821-1867) George Jane Henry | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't really see these boxes are being necessary. The files we have are excellent and there is nothing wrong with linking to images in a "See also" section (see did so at Mary Shelley, for example, which recently passed FA). I think we should also retain the name "See also". I've already the Timeline of Jane Austen link and hope to add other pages someday, such as the List of works of Jane Austen. Awadewit ( talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
Jane Austen was sent away from home for some of her education, but this is not included, I'm wondering why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.144.177 ( talk) 03:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This article describes Austen's 6 brothers and her sister Cassandra - -- HOWEVER upon a recent visit to the official Jane Austen Centre in Bath, England one learns that Austen had an older brother who was institutionalized. Probaby he was simply bi-polar but they are not 100% certain. According to the centre, in the centure having any type of a mental disorder was frieghtening and disgraceful. The curator of the centre described the dificulty of an English pastor/christian to put his eldest son into a home and probably not see him again. It was difficult choice. HOWEVER, according to this article the mentally-challenged son is George who interacted with Jane, somewhat. According to the centre, the mentally challenged brother had to be constantly restrained! Indeed, Jane had another brother who was the eldest who she probalby only saw briefly through a window or bard 3-4 times in her entire life! This information came from a lecture at the centre which they hold 2-3 times daily - see: http://www.janeausten.co.uk/index.ihtml Roz Lipschitz ( talk) 09:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Simmaren, I see you have altered the Juvenilia list. I took that list from Chapman and footnoted it. Since you have now taken the list from a different edition, can you change the footnote so that it reflects the edition you took it from? Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Added links to the novel The Jane Austen Book Club and The Jane Austen Book Club (film). I think that these should be linked from this article, but we don't seem to have a section on "derivative works" (other than film treatments of Austen's novels themselves).
Hmm, now I see that these are in a separate article "
Jane Austen in popular culture". I think that
Jane Austen in popular culture should be (re-)merged with
Jane Austen.
--
201.37.230.43 (
talk)
18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This image has been proposed for the "Family" section and at the moment is being excluded because of MOS rules about images sandwiching text. I'd just like to say that even if the text was reformatted I don't think this is a useful image in this context.
The actual image is not of encyclopedic quality, having been post-processed to remove detail and add "rudimentary" colour. I think the original is more like http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austarms.gif. Anyway, Austen is not famous because of her family, and the coat of arms wasn't granted because of anything she did. How is it relevant? - Pointillist ( talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I moved the images below the header for accessibility and prescribed by WP:LS. When going through the text with a screen reader, you would want the computer to read the title then the image caption. Moved the See also below the List of works section as prescribed by WP:LAYOUT. Use {{ clear}} at the end the text in a section if you want a gap below the image and the next header. This method is more reliable, especially when screen when vary. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Many of the most important scholarly works on Austen are included in the "Reference" section, but a serious omission is Nina Auerbach's Romantic Imprisonment: Women and Other Glorified Outcasts. Among its numerous insights, this book's pathbreaking contribution is its explanation of Fanny Price's fundamental aversiveness. Auerbach's findings here are generally relevant to any reader of Mansfield Park, but they have been especially useful--pivotal, even--to feminist scholars on Austen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafster07 ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
"Starting with Emma Thompson's film of Sense and Sensibility, a great wave of Austen adaptations began to appear around 1995.[116]"
Ang Lee's and Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility's release date was December 12, 1995. A&E's Pride and Prejudice was aired by BBC One in the fall of 1995, and by the A&E Network in the U.S. in January 1996. I would at the very least include this seminal television production in this section, distinguishing between movie and television adaptations. Vsanborn ( talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I left this message elsewhere.
I am responding to your comment about Bride and Prejudice on the Jane Austen page. I see that my contribution has been swiftly deleted, which absolutely amazes me. Frankly, Bride and Prejudice merits a mention on the main page because of its unique quality of demonstrating world wide (intercontinental) interest in Jane, which is different than Amy Heckerling's Clueless, which interpreted Jane in a modern way. I was quite careful to introduce this smidgen of information on the main Jane Austen page and thought about it carefully.
I also left a message about the A&E Pride and Prejudice adaptation. Strictly speaking, it was broadcast before Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility hit the theatres and should at least be mentioned on the main page as having ushered in a series of television adaptations that continue to this day. Vsanborn ( talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is relevant or interesting, and not sure if information on Jane Austen's extended family has a place in this or any other article, but I've just put together a short article on Thomas Williams (Royal Navy officer), Austen's maternal uncle by marriage. He married Jane Leigh, sister of Cassandra Austen in 1792, and became a widower when she was killed in a carriage accident on the Isle of Wight, caused by a runaway horse in 1798.
Source: Williams, Sir Thomas, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, J. K. Laughton, (subscription required), Retrieved 12 April 2009
Not sure if either of these people are of interest, but thought I'd bring it here in case it was.-- Jackyd101( talk) 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
On August 11, I updated the notes system from {{ Ref_label}} to a more effective hard coded XHTML. [2] [3] I'm updating "Notes" section to take advantage of the {{ Cnote2}} template system, it's easier to manage than hard coding everything in XHTML. The documentation is on the template Template:Cnote2, which describes its usage. Removed the fourth note down (note "D") in the old version [4] since it was unused, here is the text: "As reported by Austen's niece, Anna, the family crest appeared on George Austen's carriage at the time of Henry Austen's 1797 marriage to Eliza de Feuillide. [1]". ChyranandChloe ( talk) 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Jane Austen was listed as a co-author of a reworking of Pride and Prejudice - Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Should that be listed here as a posthumous work? I'm hesitant to add it without discussion, but the book did end up on the NYT Bestseller list, which isn't exactly small potatos. 64.56.102.242 ( talk) 12:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think some mention should be made of the 2007 film Becoming Jane, based on Austen's relationship with Tom Lefroy. -- Webbie1234 ( talk) 05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have the images from this book, and will work my way through them. If you tell me about any you want to have quickly, I'll try to prioritise those. But, anyway, here's the first. Much, much higher resolution than the tiny little one we formerly had; however, given the revisionism, I didn't want to shove it into the article without giving time for it to be properly framed. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am guessing that the information/perspectives in the essay I found here: [5] would most likely be already covered in the refs/books provided in the article but if not, I thought I would post it here for a potential use/future ref. Kind regards. Calaka ( talk) 04:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
CNN published the article "What really killed Jane Austen?" - It may be an interesting source for debate about her death. WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the source says it -- I don't know -- but is "biting" not just a tad over the top here? I think that characterising her works in this way in the very first paragraph risks giving readers the wrong impression. 86.146.47.248 ( talk) 04:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
(outindent) What would you suggest as a revision? I agree there is a slight disjunction there. Awadewit ( talk) 02:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be a smart idea to add the Template:Infobox writer to the article. I know that this has already been discussed before, but most, if not all, major writers have one up. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to provide information to everyone about everything? Remember, not everyone is going to read the article (specially since it's so long). I think getting the basic information out there in a quick way will greatly benefit the article.
I looked over Archive 1, 2, and 3 but it seams the suggestion was mainly talked down by the same two users! And it's not just that, but they seam to control the whole article. I have no wish to begin an "edit war" or resort to "wikilawyering." Isn't this the "encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Where a neutral point of view should always be endeavored for? I know they were probably acting in good faith, but we should try to be open to new ideas. The "infobox" arguments were in 2007 and 2008 where infoboxes were mostly optional. Now that's almost 2010, infoboxes have become standard if not required in all articles. Proof of that is the Wikipedia banner...
Anyway, the article has grown so long, it would take a regular reader a long time to just get the basic information. I propose we bring the infobox back. Perhaps not use all the fields provided (since I understand would damage the 'aesthetics' of it, but some key few. However, in an encyclopedia, isn't information supposed to be valued above 'aesthetics.' - ImperialJaineite ( talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the number of "fair copies": 29 of them?
This material was added to the article recently: "Throughout the majority of Austen's career, she preferred anonymity. Stories say that at her home in Chawton, Jane wrote on small slips of paper that could be easily hidden if she heard someone entering through the squeaky door. She wrote under several pseudonyms including "Mrs. Ashton Dennis" (when she sold Susan originally), and "A Lady" (when Sense and Sensibility was published). Her next published novel, Pride and Prejudice was inscribed as "The Author of Sense and Sensibility," a method which was used in each consequential novel. [2]"
References
I clearly value this more than some other editors do. I accept this, so I'm restoring the full dates of birth and death at the very opening. This information was already given in the appropriate sections, where it is entirely appropriate thematically and in terms of the detail of the text. I still do not believe that the fact she was born on 16 December and died on 18 July warrants cluttering up the all-important year range right at the opening. The lead is supposed to be a summary (i.e., a rationing of detail, to focus the readers on the big picture). See discussion at MONSUM Tony (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I went to add an infobox and saw an invisible note not to do so. Is there still a consensus against adding one? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following addition to the article:"Kathryn Sutherland, professor of the Faculty of English Language and Literature at Oxford University, has studied the manuscript of Jane Austen's Persuasion (her only surviving unedited manuscript) and has found that much of her polished style is probably the result of editorial tidying by William Gifford (who worked for the publisher John Murray). The original manuscript is full of misspellings (many of which (e.g. "tomatas" for " tomatoes" and "arraroot" for " arrowroot") show that Jane Austen spoke with a strong Hampshire accent), erratic punctuation, erratic word order, unseparated paragraphs, and not keeping separate the speeches of the speakers in conversations. [1]".
References
{{ edit semi-protected}} Can someone please remove the "PLEASE THIS Klick" vandalism all over the page. Thanks!
8.225.199.10 ( talk) 15:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Emma was 1816, not 1815...
It's Love and Freindship. The spelling is supposed to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.176.58 ( talk) 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} External links: media coverage
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jane Austen was a social satirist. NOT a mere romance novelist. The "genre" section should be corrected, and Austen should be included in satire specific pages (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satirists_and_satires).
124.191.124.42 ( talk) 05:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This appeared on yahoo.... a conjecture that she died of Arsenic poisoning ... anyone else hear about this? Not sure how plausible it is. http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/crime-novelist-claims-jane-austen-died-arsenic-poisoning-173146375.html Ll1324 ( talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Notable work(s) Pride and Prejudice - Sense and Sensibility. While it's true these are arguably her most famous literal works, it may also imply they are her only notable works which is simply not the case. If it stated "Example of" or "Most" notable, then that might be better. Thought I would just bring it up. -- Nutthida ( talk) 00:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It is common knowledge that Jane Austen's appearence is something of a mystery due to the lack of likenesses (other than that drawn by Cassandra Austen). However, there is another portrait that has surfaced recently that appears to be of a female writer from the Regency period. The owner of the portrait gathered a great deal of research in support of the possibility that the portrait is of Jane Austen herself, which was detailed in a documentary recently aired by the BBC. I see no mention of this in this article, yet consider it to be one of the most important Austen-related discoveries of recent years. Should there be mention of it here? Here is a link to the BBC new item on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16027710 Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.53.64 ( talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I move towards merging Reception history of Jane Austen with the Reception (sorry, I don't know how to link a subpage) subpage of Jane Austen. Theophilec ( talk) 02:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The introduction contains this misleading sentence: Her work brought her little personal fame and only a few positive reviews during her lifetime, but… It's accurate, but it incorrectly implies that her works weren't much noticed in her own time. I"m changing it to this: Her works, though usually popular, were first published anonymously and brought her little personal fame and only a few positive reviews during her lifetime, but… — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 03:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
What's currently reference 17 has a (bare) link to www.westminster.gov.uk/services/leisureandculture/greenplaques/. This brings "Sorry, we can't find this page." But the Wayback Machine has it archived.
More worrisomely, it's merely a very humdrum page about green plaques in general. Unsurprisingly, it provides no evidence whatever for the set of assertions that follow the preceding citation of a reference, namely:
It's not unlikely that the content of the page changed over time. It seems to me extremely unlikely that any version of the page would have said anything about Austen.
I'm no Austenist, but the fourth and fifth of these five sentences strike me as very disposable, and the first to third seem the kind of material that (if widely believed true) could be found in the entry for her brother in some reputable publisher's "companion" to Jane Austen. (Unfortunately I don't have such a book, or anything like it, to hand.) Espressi ( talk) 07:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
When I wrote the above, I was new and not "autoconfirmed". Now I'm "autoconfirmed", so I went ahead and made the edits that I recommended above. Espressi ( talk) 05:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
In the news, a new "researched" image of Austen, from the Jane Austen Centre. [9]
Also, why nothing about the forthcoming £10 note with Austen's picture? [10] Choor monster ( talk) 19:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
for an appreciation of Austen's subversiveness in commenting on a social ill. http://scholarship.rollins.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=mls 71.163.117.143 ( talk) 19:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This was removed last April. Not sure why. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC).
authors main article Shrikanthv ( talk) 11:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
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)
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)
The archived talk page you directed me to was not reassuring, actually. Sills bend ( talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the friendship/freindship debate, The six-volume Oxford Illustrated Jane Austen uses "friendship". The Penguin ClassicJuvinilia 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
"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)
The see also section contains links to images of Jane Austen's family tree rather than a collection of links to related articles. I propose switching it to either a Gallery or Family tree to better reflect its contents. I prefer Gallery since this would open a space to place other related images if we so necessary. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 02:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't like how the "See also" section is used, this section is generally reserved a list of links to articles related to the subject. Perhaps "Family tree" would be more appropriate. There is also another option to using either links or galleries, that is to use a HTML chart of Jane Austen's family tree (see below). I used the {{ Chart}} template along with some custom HTML for the show/hide. The colors are default, but I can change that to whatever best suits the article. Another feature is that you can use the full wiki-markup along with images. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)(UTC)
William Austen (1701-1737) | Rebbecca Austen (née Hampson) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philadelphia (1730-1792) | Tyoe Saul Hancock (d. 1775) | Rev. George (1731-1805) | Cassandra Leigh (1739-1827) | Leonora (1732-1783) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jean Capot de Feuillide (guillotined 1794) | Eliza (Elizabeth) (1761-1813) | Henry Austen | Rev. James (1765-1819) | George (1766-1838) | Edward (1767-1852) | Hentry (1771-1850) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cassandra (1773-1845) |
Francis (1774-1865) | Jane (1775-1817) |
Charles (1779-1852) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rev. George (1731-1805) | Cassandra Leigh (1739-1827) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rev. James (1765-1819) | Mary Lloyd (1771-1843) | EdwardKnight (1767-1852) | Elizabeth Bridges | (Sir) Francis (1774-1865) | Mary Gibson | Frances Palmer | Charles (1779-1852) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rev James Edward Austen-Leigh (1798-1874) Caroline Mary | Fanny (1793-1882) Edward (1794-1879) George (1795-1867) Henry (1797-1843) | William (1798-1873) Elizabeth (1800-1884) Marianne (1801-1896) Charles (1803-1867) | Louisa (1804-1889) Cassandra Jane (1806-1842) Brook John (1808-1878) | Mary Jane (1807-1836) Francis William (1809-1858) Henry Edgar (1811-1854) George (1812-1903) | Cassandra Eliza (1814-1849) Herbert Grey (1815-1888) Elizabeth (1817-1830) Catherine Anne (1818-1877) | Edward Thomas (1820-1908) Frances Sophia (1821-1904) Cholmely (1823-1824) | Cassandra Ester (1808-1897) Harriet Jane (1810-1865) Frances Palmer (1812-1882) Elizabeth (b. & d. 1814) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anna (1793-1872) | Harriet Palmer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rev. James Edward Austen-Leigh (1798-1874) Caroline Mary | Charles John (1821-1867) George Jane Henry | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't really see these boxes are being necessary. The files we have are excellent and there is nothing wrong with linking to images in a "See also" section (see did so at Mary Shelley, for example, which recently passed FA). I think we should also retain the name "See also". I've already the Timeline of Jane Austen link and hope to add other pages someday, such as the List of works of Jane Austen. Awadewit ( talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
Jane Austen was sent away from home for some of her education, but this is not included, I'm wondering why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.144.177 ( talk) 03:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This article describes Austen's 6 brothers and her sister Cassandra - -- HOWEVER upon a recent visit to the official Jane Austen Centre in Bath, England one learns that Austen had an older brother who was institutionalized. Probaby he was simply bi-polar but they are not 100% certain. According to the centre, in the centure having any type of a mental disorder was frieghtening and disgraceful. The curator of the centre described the dificulty of an English pastor/christian to put his eldest son into a home and probably not see him again. It was difficult choice. HOWEVER, according to this article the mentally-challenged son is George who interacted with Jane, somewhat. According to the centre, the mentally challenged brother had to be constantly restrained! Indeed, Jane had another brother who was the eldest who she probalby only saw briefly through a window or bard 3-4 times in her entire life! This information came from a lecture at the centre which they hold 2-3 times daily - see: http://www.janeausten.co.uk/index.ihtml Roz Lipschitz ( talk) 09:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Simmaren, I see you have altered the Juvenilia list. I took that list from Chapman and footnoted it. Since you have now taken the list from a different edition, can you change the footnote so that it reflects the edition you took it from? Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Added links to the novel The Jane Austen Book Club and The Jane Austen Book Club (film). I think that these should be linked from this article, but we don't seem to have a section on "derivative works" (other than film treatments of Austen's novels themselves).
Hmm, now I see that these are in a separate article "
Jane Austen in popular culture". I think that
Jane Austen in popular culture should be (re-)merged with
Jane Austen.
--
201.37.230.43 (
talk)
18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This image has been proposed for the "Family" section and at the moment is being excluded because of MOS rules about images sandwiching text. I'd just like to say that even if the text was reformatted I don't think this is a useful image in this context.
The actual image is not of encyclopedic quality, having been post-processed to remove detail and add "rudimentary" colour. I think the original is more like http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austarms.gif. Anyway, Austen is not famous because of her family, and the coat of arms wasn't granted because of anything she did. How is it relevant? - Pointillist ( talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I moved the images below the header for accessibility and prescribed by WP:LS. When going through the text with a screen reader, you would want the computer to read the title then the image caption. Moved the See also below the List of works section as prescribed by WP:LAYOUT. Use {{ clear}} at the end the text in a section if you want a gap below the image and the next header. This method is more reliable, especially when screen when vary. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Many of the most important scholarly works on Austen are included in the "Reference" section, but a serious omission is Nina Auerbach's Romantic Imprisonment: Women and Other Glorified Outcasts. Among its numerous insights, this book's pathbreaking contribution is its explanation of Fanny Price's fundamental aversiveness. Auerbach's findings here are generally relevant to any reader of Mansfield Park, but they have been especially useful--pivotal, even--to feminist scholars on Austen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafster07 ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
"Starting with Emma Thompson's film of Sense and Sensibility, a great wave of Austen adaptations began to appear around 1995.[116]"
Ang Lee's and Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility's release date was December 12, 1995. A&E's Pride and Prejudice was aired by BBC One in the fall of 1995, and by the A&E Network in the U.S. in January 1996. I would at the very least include this seminal television production in this section, distinguishing between movie and television adaptations. Vsanborn ( talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I left this message elsewhere.
I am responding to your comment about Bride and Prejudice on the Jane Austen page. I see that my contribution has been swiftly deleted, which absolutely amazes me. Frankly, Bride and Prejudice merits a mention on the main page because of its unique quality of demonstrating world wide (intercontinental) interest in Jane, which is different than Amy Heckerling's Clueless, which interpreted Jane in a modern way. I was quite careful to introduce this smidgen of information on the main Jane Austen page and thought about it carefully.
I also left a message about the A&E Pride and Prejudice adaptation. Strictly speaking, it was broadcast before Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility hit the theatres and should at least be mentioned on the main page as having ushered in a series of television adaptations that continue to this day. Vsanborn ( talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is relevant or interesting, and not sure if information on Jane Austen's extended family has a place in this or any other article, but I've just put together a short article on Thomas Williams (Royal Navy officer), Austen's maternal uncle by marriage. He married Jane Leigh, sister of Cassandra Austen in 1792, and became a widower when she was killed in a carriage accident on the Isle of Wight, caused by a runaway horse in 1798.
Source: Williams, Sir Thomas, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, J. K. Laughton, (subscription required), Retrieved 12 April 2009
Not sure if either of these people are of interest, but thought I'd bring it here in case it was.-- Jackyd101( talk) 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
On August 11, I updated the notes system from {{ Ref_label}} to a more effective hard coded XHTML. [2] [3] I'm updating "Notes" section to take advantage of the {{ Cnote2}} template system, it's easier to manage than hard coding everything in XHTML. The documentation is on the template Template:Cnote2, which describes its usage. Removed the fourth note down (note "D") in the old version [4] since it was unused, here is the text: "As reported by Austen's niece, Anna, the family crest appeared on George Austen's carriage at the time of Henry Austen's 1797 marriage to Eliza de Feuillide. [1]". ChyranandChloe ( talk) 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Jane Austen was listed as a co-author of a reworking of Pride and Prejudice - Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Should that be listed here as a posthumous work? I'm hesitant to add it without discussion, but the book did end up on the NYT Bestseller list, which isn't exactly small potatos. 64.56.102.242 ( talk) 12:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think some mention should be made of the 2007 film Becoming Jane, based on Austen's relationship with Tom Lefroy. -- Webbie1234 ( talk) 05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have the images from this book, and will work my way through them. If you tell me about any you want to have quickly, I'll try to prioritise those. But, anyway, here's the first. Much, much higher resolution than the tiny little one we formerly had; however, given the revisionism, I didn't want to shove it into the article without giving time for it to be properly framed. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am guessing that the information/perspectives in the essay I found here: [5] would most likely be already covered in the refs/books provided in the article but if not, I thought I would post it here for a potential use/future ref. Kind regards. Calaka ( talk) 04:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
CNN published the article "What really killed Jane Austen?" - It may be an interesting source for debate about her death. WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the source says it -- I don't know -- but is "biting" not just a tad over the top here? I think that characterising her works in this way in the very first paragraph risks giving readers the wrong impression. 86.146.47.248 ( talk) 04:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
(outindent) What would you suggest as a revision? I agree there is a slight disjunction there. Awadewit ( talk) 02:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be a smart idea to add the Template:Infobox writer to the article. I know that this has already been discussed before, but most, if not all, major writers have one up. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to provide information to everyone about everything? Remember, not everyone is going to read the article (specially since it's so long). I think getting the basic information out there in a quick way will greatly benefit the article.
I looked over Archive 1, 2, and 3 but it seams the suggestion was mainly talked down by the same two users! And it's not just that, but they seam to control the whole article. I have no wish to begin an "edit war" or resort to "wikilawyering." Isn't this the "encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Where a neutral point of view should always be endeavored for? I know they were probably acting in good faith, but we should try to be open to new ideas. The "infobox" arguments were in 2007 and 2008 where infoboxes were mostly optional. Now that's almost 2010, infoboxes have become standard if not required in all articles. Proof of that is the Wikipedia banner...
Anyway, the article has grown so long, it would take a regular reader a long time to just get the basic information. I propose we bring the infobox back. Perhaps not use all the fields provided (since I understand would damage the 'aesthetics' of it, but some key few. However, in an encyclopedia, isn't information supposed to be valued above 'aesthetics.' - ImperialJaineite ( talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the number of "fair copies": 29 of them?
This material was added to the article recently: "Throughout the majority of Austen's career, she preferred anonymity. Stories say that at her home in Chawton, Jane wrote on small slips of paper that could be easily hidden if she heard someone entering through the squeaky door. She wrote under several pseudonyms including "Mrs. Ashton Dennis" (when she sold Susan originally), and "A Lady" (when Sense and Sensibility was published). Her next published novel, Pride and Prejudice was inscribed as "The Author of Sense and Sensibility," a method which was used in each consequential novel. [2]"
References
I clearly value this more than some other editors do. I accept this, so I'm restoring the full dates of birth and death at the very opening. This information was already given in the appropriate sections, where it is entirely appropriate thematically and in terms of the detail of the text. I still do not believe that the fact she was born on 16 December and died on 18 July warrants cluttering up the all-important year range right at the opening. The lead is supposed to be a summary (i.e., a rationing of detail, to focus the readers on the big picture). See discussion at MONSUM Tony (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I went to add an infobox and saw an invisible note not to do so. Is there still a consensus against adding one? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following addition to the article:"Kathryn Sutherland, professor of the Faculty of English Language and Literature at Oxford University, has studied the manuscript of Jane Austen's Persuasion (her only surviving unedited manuscript) and has found that much of her polished style is probably the result of editorial tidying by William Gifford (who worked for the publisher John Murray). The original manuscript is full of misspellings (many of which (e.g. "tomatas" for " tomatoes" and "arraroot" for " arrowroot") show that Jane Austen spoke with a strong Hampshire accent), erratic punctuation, erratic word order, unseparated paragraphs, and not keeping separate the speeches of the speakers in conversations. [1]".
References
{{ edit semi-protected}} Can someone please remove the "PLEASE THIS Klick" vandalism all over the page. Thanks!
8.225.199.10 ( talk) 15:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Emma was 1816, not 1815...
It's Love and Freindship. The spelling is supposed to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.176.58 ( talk) 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} External links: media coverage
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jane Austen was a social satirist. NOT a mere romance novelist. The "genre" section should be corrected, and Austen should be included in satire specific pages (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satirists_and_satires).
124.191.124.42 ( talk) 05:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This appeared on yahoo.... a conjecture that she died of Arsenic poisoning ... anyone else hear about this? Not sure how plausible it is. http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/crime-novelist-claims-jane-austen-died-arsenic-poisoning-173146375.html Ll1324 ( talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Notable work(s) Pride and Prejudice - Sense and Sensibility. While it's true these are arguably her most famous literal works, it may also imply they are her only notable works which is simply not the case. If it stated "Example of" or "Most" notable, then that might be better. Thought I would just bring it up. -- Nutthida ( talk) 00:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It is common knowledge that Jane Austen's appearence is something of a mystery due to the lack of likenesses (other than that drawn by Cassandra Austen). However, there is another portrait that has surfaced recently that appears to be of a female writer from the Regency period. The owner of the portrait gathered a great deal of research in support of the possibility that the portrait is of Jane Austen herself, which was detailed in a documentary recently aired by the BBC. I see no mention of this in this article, yet consider it to be one of the most important Austen-related discoveries of recent years. Should there be mention of it here? Here is a link to the BBC new item on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16027710 Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.53.64 ( talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I move towards merging Reception history of Jane Austen with the Reception (sorry, I don't know how to link a subpage) subpage of Jane Austen. Theophilec ( talk) 02:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The introduction contains this misleading sentence: Her work brought her little personal fame and only a few positive reviews during her lifetime, but… It's accurate, but it incorrectly implies that her works weren't much noticed in her own time. I"m changing it to this: Her works, though usually popular, were first published anonymously and brought her little personal fame and only a few positive reviews during her lifetime, but… — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 03:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
What's currently reference 17 has a (bare) link to www.westminster.gov.uk/services/leisureandculture/greenplaques/. This brings "Sorry, we can't find this page." But the Wayback Machine has it archived.
More worrisomely, it's merely a very humdrum page about green plaques in general. Unsurprisingly, it provides no evidence whatever for the set of assertions that follow the preceding citation of a reference, namely:
It's not unlikely that the content of the page changed over time. It seems to me extremely unlikely that any version of the page would have said anything about Austen.
I'm no Austenist, but the fourth and fifth of these five sentences strike me as very disposable, and the first to third seem the kind of material that (if widely believed true) could be found in the entry for her brother in some reputable publisher's "companion" to Jane Austen. (Unfortunately I don't have such a book, or anything like it, to hand.) Espressi ( talk) 07:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
When I wrote the above, I was new and not "autoconfirmed". Now I'm "autoconfirmed", so I went ahead and made the edits that I recommended above. Espressi ( talk) 05:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
In the news, a new "researched" image of Austen, from the Jane Austen Centre. [9]
Also, why nothing about the forthcoming £10 note with Austen's picture? [10] Choor monster ( talk) 19:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
for an appreciation of Austen's subversiveness in commenting on a social ill. http://scholarship.rollins.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=mls 71.163.117.143 ( talk) 19:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This was removed last April. Not sure why. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC).
authors main article Shrikanthv ( talk) 11:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)