![]() | Reception history of Jane Austen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 28, 2013, and on January 21, 2019. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 8 May 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to ?. The result of the discussion was No consensus for any clear standard here. |
![]() |
|
Article could do with more expansion on the general ignorance of Austen in Russia. It's only mentioned briefly and she is not rated highly there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.252.74 ( talk) 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
"The questions scholars now investigate involve: "the Revolution, war, nationalism, empire, class, 'improvement' [of the estate], the clergy, town versus country, abolition, the professions, female emancipation; whether her politics were Tory, Whig, or radical; whether she was a conservative or a revolutionary, or occupied a reformist position between these extremes"."
Which Revolution? French? American? Needs to be made clear. I suspect the American revolution is what is meant, as this article has a definite US slant, but it needs clarifying.
I have also removed the identification of FR Leavis and EM Forster as 'British'. Other critics mentioned do not have their nationalities given so I fail to see why these two should be singled out. It smacks rather of a US-centric viewpoint ie treat the US as the default, which should not be the case. 86.134.25.190 ( talk) 16:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I am no literary scholar, but I happened on Harold Bloom's book of the 1990s on the Western Canon The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages, and he calls Persuasion the perfect novel, includes a chapter contrasting Jane Austen with Wordsworth. Is he not worth mentioning in a high quality article like this one, in his decade? I do not feel qualified to alter this article, but I do work on the articles on her novels. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 13:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Prairieplant, I see now that you copied the sentences from Fountains-of-Paris, from the last paragraph of this section in an earlier version of Austen. That should be avoided, especially when editing an FA, but when it's done it needs attribution (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). I'm going to remove it, in part because it derives from a chapter title, and in part because it doesn't flow from the rest of the paragraph; if you'd like to add something about Bloom's scholarship, perhaps you could summarize it very briefly and we could find a way to make it work. It's worth noting that there was no mention of him in the version that was promoted. SarahSV (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I was reading this (marvellous) article because it had appeared for me on the main page as TFA (prematurely, it is due 21 January). In the section "Nineteenth-century European translations" (even at the time the article was featured [1]) there is quite a bit of reference to Montolieu's supposed translation of Pride and Prejudice citing Cossy, Valérie and Diego Saglia. "Translations". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN 0521826446. 171. [2] As I read it, it is the translation in the journal Bibliothèque britannique that Cossy is criticising: Orgueil et Préjugé. [3] It may be that this translation is anonymous. [4] So far as I can see Montolieu translated only Persuasion and Sense and Sensibility. Cossy has also written here. I would have simply changed the name of the translator except she is discussed in some detail in the paragraph and to some extent the content clashes with what is in the next paragraph starting "A study of other important dimensions of the French translations" which was added after the article had been featured but which I suspect is on target. Trying to edit and reconcile the remarks about critics of Austen's translators (!) is way too far outside my abilities so I hope someone can come to the rescue. I'm now reading on ... Thincat ( talk) 20:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Despite my reticence above I have gone ahead and changed the article. Please revert or change further. Thincat ( talk) 22:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not at all happy that the "translations" section is balanced or even coherent. I've found a recent paper https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/quaderns/quaderns_a2018n25/quaderns_a2018n25p15.pdf that considers both Cossy's and Russell's work and it may help someone pull the section into shape. Of the early translations maybe it is only that of Persuasion by Montolieu that was sensitive to some nuance and, even then, rather specifically to "free independent discourse". Thincat ( talk) 23:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Among other things, Template:Main states it is intended to be used " to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized" (bolding mine) ... Use of this template should be restricted to the purposes described above." Jane Austen is not the subtopic, this article is. Plus, as I have already stated in my edit comment, "It is not to be used as a substitute for inline links" (bolding not mine). Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus for any particular standard here (bit of a WP:TRAINWRECK, feel free to start a broader RfC or to nominate these individually. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 06:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
– These articles revolve around the same basic idea, and per WP:CONSISTENT, it makes sense to standardize them. Below is a list of possibilities; feel free to add additional ones. They range from a focus on WP:CONCISE to a focus on WP:PRECISE, and all are WP:RECOGNIZABLE and arguably WP:NATURAL. Aza24 ( talk) 04:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Aza24 ( talk) 04:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Francis, I know you hate my guts (judging from your behavior toward me since ca. 2006), for whatever unexplained reason(s), but you really need to think more critically before you leap into knee-jerk opposition to everything I write simply because it came from me – and in this case, seemingly with the only actual purpose of inserting an insinuation that I'm too stupid to know Bach ever wrote anything but sheet music and too stupid to have considered various other things, and then engage in a bunch of fantastical projection about varous ad hominem things including what I know and don't know and what my movitations are. Your civility history is long-term problematic, and you do not appear to be learning from your blocks. Oh, never mind. I went to leave you a civility warning template, but see that you're already blocked yet again, indefinitely, since 06:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC), literally while I was writing this. D'oh.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
07:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Elli, the only " WP:TRAINWRECK" here seems to be your close. This should have been re-listed; one of the opposes was from a consistently absuive user who has now been permanently banned; and there were only two others, one of which didn't address my query on "what exactly is unique about each article to warrant "music" in one but not "writings" in the others" and the other which was sparsely explained. Otherwise there were three users support #3 and one #1—thus four users expressing a need for a move. Sounds like a relist and not a close so I don't know that you should be closing moves if you couldn't see that. Aza24 ( talk) 05:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Reception history of Jane Austen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 28, 2013, and on January 21, 2019. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 8 May 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to ?. The result of the discussion was No consensus for any clear standard here. |
![]() |
|
Article could do with more expansion on the general ignorance of Austen in Russia. It's only mentioned briefly and she is not rated highly there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.252.74 ( talk) 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
"The questions scholars now investigate involve: "the Revolution, war, nationalism, empire, class, 'improvement' [of the estate], the clergy, town versus country, abolition, the professions, female emancipation; whether her politics were Tory, Whig, or radical; whether she was a conservative or a revolutionary, or occupied a reformist position between these extremes"."
Which Revolution? French? American? Needs to be made clear. I suspect the American revolution is what is meant, as this article has a definite US slant, but it needs clarifying.
I have also removed the identification of FR Leavis and EM Forster as 'British'. Other critics mentioned do not have their nationalities given so I fail to see why these two should be singled out. It smacks rather of a US-centric viewpoint ie treat the US as the default, which should not be the case. 86.134.25.190 ( talk) 16:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I am no literary scholar, but I happened on Harold Bloom's book of the 1990s on the Western Canon The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages, and he calls Persuasion the perfect novel, includes a chapter contrasting Jane Austen with Wordsworth. Is he not worth mentioning in a high quality article like this one, in his decade? I do not feel qualified to alter this article, but I do work on the articles on her novels. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 13:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Prairieplant, I see now that you copied the sentences from Fountains-of-Paris, from the last paragraph of this section in an earlier version of Austen. That should be avoided, especially when editing an FA, but when it's done it needs attribution (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). I'm going to remove it, in part because it derives from a chapter title, and in part because it doesn't flow from the rest of the paragraph; if you'd like to add something about Bloom's scholarship, perhaps you could summarize it very briefly and we could find a way to make it work. It's worth noting that there was no mention of him in the version that was promoted. SarahSV (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I was reading this (marvellous) article because it had appeared for me on the main page as TFA (prematurely, it is due 21 January). In the section "Nineteenth-century European translations" (even at the time the article was featured [1]) there is quite a bit of reference to Montolieu's supposed translation of Pride and Prejudice citing Cossy, Valérie and Diego Saglia. "Translations". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN 0521826446. 171. [2] As I read it, it is the translation in the journal Bibliothèque britannique that Cossy is criticising: Orgueil et Préjugé. [3] It may be that this translation is anonymous. [4] So far as I can see Montolieu translated only Persuasion and Sense and Sensibility. Cossy has also written here. I would have simply changed the name of the translator except she is discussed in some detail in the paragraph and to some extent the content clashes with what is in the next paragraph starting "A study of other important dimensions of the French translations" which was added after the article had been featured but which I suspect is on target. Trying to edit and reconcile the remarks about critics of Austen's translators (!) is way too far outside my abilities so I hope someone can come to the rescue. I'm now reading on ... Thincat ( talk) 20:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Despite my reticence above I have gone ahead and changed the article. Please revert or change further. Thincat ( talk) 22:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not at all happy that the "translations" section is balanced or even coherent. I've found a recent paper https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/quaderns/quaderns_a2018n25/quaderns_a2018n25p15.pdf that considers both Cossy's and Russell's work and it may help someone pull the section into shape. Of the early translations maybe it is only that of Persuasion by Montolieu that was sensitive to some nuance and, even then, rather specifically to "free independent discourse". Thincat ( talk) 23:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Among other things, Template:Main states it is intended to be used " to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized" (bolding mine) ... Use of this template should be restricted to the purposes described above." Jane Austen is not the subtopic, this article is. Plus, as I have already stated in my edit comment, "It is not to be used as a substitute for inline links" (bolding not mine). Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus for any particular standard here (bit of a WP:TRAINWRECK, feel free to start a broader RfC or to nominate these individually. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 06:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
– These articles revolve around the same basic idea, and per WP:CONSISTENT, it makes sense to standardize them. Below is a list of possibilities; feel free to add additional ones. They range from a focus on WP:CONCISE to a focus on WP:PRECISE, and all are WP:RECOGNIZABLE and arguably WP:NATURAL. Aza24 ( talk) 04:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Aza24 ( talk) 04:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Francis, I know you hate my guts (judging from your behavior toward me since ca. 2006), for whatever unexplained reason(s), but you really need to think more critically before you leap into knee-jerk opposition to everything I write simply because it came from me – and in this case, seemingly with the only actual purpose of inserting an insinuation that I'm too stupid to know Bach ever wrote anything but sheet music and too stupid to have considered various other things, and then engage in a bunch of fantastical projection about varous ad hominem things including what I know and don't know and what my movitations are. Your civility history is long-term problematic, and you do not appear to be learning from your blocks. Oh, never mind. I went to leave you a civility warning template, but see that you're already blocked yet again, indefinitely, since 06:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC), literally while I was writing this. D'oh.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
07:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Elli, the only " WP:TRAINWRECK" here seems to be your close. This should have been re-listed; one of the opposes was from a consistently absuive user who has now been permanently banned; and there were only two others, one of which didn't address my query on "what exactly is unique about each article to warrant "music" in one but not "writings" in the others" and the other which was sparsely explained. Otherwise there were three users support #3 and one #1—thus four users expressing a need for a move. Sounds like a relist and not a close so I don't know that you should be closing moves if you couldn't see that. Aza24 ( talk) 05:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)