Talk:Julia Stephen

Julia Stephen has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 21, 2018. (Reviewed version).

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

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

Article policies

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

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: United Nations (2016)

This article was created or improved during the United Nations edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in July 2016. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

A fact from Julia Stephen appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 March 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Virginia Woolf was conceived despite her mother Julia Stephen and father doing "what they could to prevent me", since "contraception was a very imperfect art" in the 19th century?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Stephen.

Wikipedia

Redirect problem

I just noticed that "Julia Duckworth" as linked in some articles (such as Leslie Stephen) is no longer redirecting to Julia Stephen, instead redirecting to "The Nolans". Seems questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:151:4680:67A:2567:F3E5:ED2B:F862 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced ahnentafel

New trees should be referenced. The ahnentafel tree carries not references at all. See WP:BURDEN.

In a biography ancestors unless notable enough to be mentioned in the text are not in themselves notable, so the agreed compromise with family trees etc is that they are collapsed in article space unless they are the subject of the article eg Japanese imperial family tree. -- PBS (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge here was - where can you place a citation in an Ahnentafel? (see genealogy in Bibliography) This was based on the unsourced Ahnentafel in Virginia Woolf. I will try a few possibilities, but actually you probably didn't notice the citation which I placed against the index case. I added some more --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Goodyear: To answer you question see Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland#Ancestry or Charles I of England#Ancestry. To take one example from this ancestry tree: what is the source that states that Therese Josephe Blin de Grincourt is the subject's maternal great-grandmother? -- PBS (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: Thanks. I had hoped you would have some preferred examples, and my intuition as to placement was correct. I have referenced all branches --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of how a few sources (in this case 3) can cover a whole tree. Unfortunately Lundy does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria (he is a self-published non-expert). But all is not lost because in many cases Lundy cites reliable sources so you can use WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT as in this example: Charles Joseph, comte de Flahaut#cite_note-11 (Notice also that in that example Lundy is cited with as section (§) link). Some times Lundy cites an email or some other unreliable source -- in which case he can not be used. -- PBS (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, clearly an area you have an interest in, I will investigate further. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god they're? tweeting about ...

this article. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Very high hit rate! Victuallers (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness - I wonder what did that? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC) - has to be Virginia Woolf's birthday on January 25th - she merited a Google Doodle--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further sleuthing shows that this spike exactly parallels that on Virginia Wolf's page, possibly because I placed a hat on it that directs here --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Julia Stephen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coffee (talk · contribs) 20:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Work section contents should not be after her death. Not sure where that rule comes from. All my WP biographies, GA and FA are written this way. See for instance William T. Stearn Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Parenthetically I have frequently complained that the Biography project does not provide any guidance for standardizing biography articles. It was for this reason that I wrote such a document as guidance for biographies of botanists in the Plant project and wrote a model FA (see above). --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Its an interesting point. I took a look at your most recent GA biography, Fannie Lou Hamer. I certainly don't have a problem with doing it that way, but it is by no means the norm, for instance both her famous daughters, Vanessa Bell and Virginia Woolf have death before works, but her second husband's has death at the end. . --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Several sentences/claims need direct inline citations throughout the article. Not sure about this. Given that there are literally hundreds of inline citations, can you point to what you consider unsupported claims? Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] There are indeed, just not for every line (some may well be listed in citations in the paragraphs but the direct claims are not). Here's the list: That is the correct assumption --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Sarah Prinsep, and her sisters, were adept at making great men feel at ease, and they frequented her house. There one might find Disraeli, Carlyle, Tennyson and Rossetti partaking of tea and croquet, while the painter George Frederic Watts (1817–1904) lived and worked there, as did for a while Edward Burne-Jones (1833–1898). added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Their third child, Gerald Duckworth, was born six weeks after his father's premature death in September 1870, at the age of 37, from an undiagnosed internal abscess. He was said to be reaching for a fig for her, while they were visiting Julia's sister (now Adeline Vaughan) at Upton Castle, New Milford, Pembrokeshire, when it ruptured. Within twenty four hours, he was dead. - This entire claim is sourced to blogspot, which is not a WP:RS. added (parenthetically Kimberley Eve is a respected writer on Victoriana, and contributor to academic publications!) Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] but kept herself going for the sake of her children. added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Julia had become aware of Leslie Stephen through both his writings on agnosticism, and through a mutual friend, Anne Thackeray (Anny, 1837–1919), the writer and daughter of William Makepeace Thackeray. added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] On January 5, 1878, Julia Duckworth and Leslie Stephen became engaged, and on March 26 they were married at Kensington Church, although she spent much of the period in between nursing her uncle, Henry Prinsep, at Watts' house in Freshwater, till he died on February 11. - If this is being sourced to the following line's citation (a book), it needs at the very least a page number (as does the following line). added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Her work was both practical advice and also advocacy. that was never intended to be a sourced statement. It is a bridging sentence between discussing her nursing text and discussing her social activism. I rewrote it to make that clearer. Incidentally while I can see the original "not only" might be perceived as laudatory and hence not NPOV, it was actually objectively descriptive — as in not only but also. Quentin Bell considers her importance measured not so much in herself as in her influence on others. added - sometimes after multiple edits, phrases become separated from their original citation, so the above were all retrieved by going back to when they were first introduced. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Done These all need page numbers as well: [Welcome to the world of eBooks, which makes exact pagination difficult --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 8 Mary Bennett's book is difficult for most readers to get hold of. In all cases I have provided an alternative easily accessible source that provides similar information on the the Jackson family. Also most of the information I extracted from the book is contained in the accessible review by Vogeler I appended to the book in the bibliography. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 20 [Stephen: That is a reference to the book, not to text within the book --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 24 [Cameron: ditto --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 57 [Wilson: Pagelink provided --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 58 [Nadel: Pagelink provided --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 67 [Bicknell: added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 84 [Stephens: — reference to book, not as source --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 95 [Woolf: — reference to book, not as source --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 100 [Woolf: — reference to book, not as source --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 101 [Woolf: — reference to book, not as source --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 104 [Ender: Pagelink provided --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 113 [Stephen: — reference to book, not as source --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 129 [DeSalvo: — reference to book, not as source --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 141 [Light: — reference to entire book, not specific source --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 142 [Dunn: pagelink provided --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 153 [Cameron: added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 191 [Humm: pagelink provided --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 198 [Lowe: reference to entire book, not specific source --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 200 [Burstyn: reference to entire book, not specific source --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 201 [Annan: added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 206 [Rosenman: substituted cited in --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Citation 208 [Hirsch: pagelink provided --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)][reply] Done
	2c. it contains no original research.	Section 1.3: '"The marriage was a happy one..." seems like a synthesis issue at the very least. We have no way of determining the "happiness" of anyone ever, unless a psychologist or otherwise is stating it. Except that that is the opinion given by biographers Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Do you have a source that states that you could point me to? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] added (similar issue to 2b)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A bit too much emphasis (WP:UNDUE) on her family versus her herself. The problems in writing a biography about someone like this is that what we know about her is largely through the eyes of family members, as for instance Quentin Bell points out, her significance lies in the interactions with those family members. Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Seems reasonable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Section 1.3: "Striking, is Vanessa Bell's 1892 portrait of her sister and parents in the Library at Talland House..." doesn't seem entirely neutral in the description Not my word, but one of the comments in the literature. The photograph had iconic status in the family as the inline citation notes. OK - rephrased --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] "As the youngest daughter, and last to marry, Julia was her mother's favourite daughter, in part due to her constant care of her mother who had many needs, and little time for maternal affection." - not inline cited properly, and if not so done, definitely a neutrality issue Additional inline provided --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] "Julia dealt with her husband's depressions and his need for attention, which created resentment in her children, boosted his self-confidence, nursed her parents in their final illness, and had many commitments outside the home that would eventually wear her down." - same as before Additional inline provided --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Section 3: "She has been described as an austerely beautiful muse of the Pre-Raphaelites, and her physical image comes down to us through countless paintings and photographs." - seems like there's a bit too much emphasis on her beauty... tone that down for NPOV purposes (throughout the article) But the whole point is that that is what she is known for - described as the most beautiful woman in England, and her portraits sold for the highest prices then known. Again, not my words but a concensus of biographers. In this particular case the phrasing is from the inline citation provided (New Yorker) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Section 2.2: "Her work was not only practical but she was also an advocate..." tone here is not fitting to NPOV But again, that is descriptive and accurate and neutral, and from the sources cited. To be precise she (1) wrote a practical guide to nursing, and (2) was a social advocate for the poor and sick and was recognized for this after her death, and examples are provided - rephrased. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Seems like we could reduce the amount used, and use a commons portal link. Theoretically one could, and that is always an option. I have been a constent critic of the overuse of images, and often remove them. In this case, her image is central to the discussion. Each image has been carefully chosen to accompany and illustrate the adjacent text. I note that another editor and project founder recently wrote in the Women in Red Project that the article was "scrumptious" , which I took to mean well illustrated. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	Overall. .	Awaiting 2b page number issues to be finished, then this will be good to go. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] Article is now good to go! Congratulations! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted or unwanted?

"Angelica Garnett describes Adrian, the last, as 'who as an wanted child was spoiled, over protected and inhibited'." I assume this should be "as an unwanted", but the source is offline. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually it is online and should be unwanted - fixed Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"celebrated English beauty"

I'm not thrilled to see "beauty" as the very first attribute. Seems to be at odds with her feminism. Surely her modelling and advocacy are more significant defining characteristics of her notability? Tony (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue that has gone back and forth so far. As a feminist I wasn't entirely happy about it either, but that is what every biographer to date has said, and historically it actually is her most notable attribute, whether we like it not, and supported by quotes from contemporaries in the text. Julia was no feminist, she was actually an anti-feminist, and called so by Meredith at the time - so on balance I think it stays. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)--Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP doesn't have to trumpet the most sexist view of women in sources, right at the opening. It could aim for a more balanced view, based on external writings that don't go down the sexist route. It's ugly again, now. Tony (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I will give that this is is a useful discussion, I think you will admit that "trumpet" and "ugly" are a little overstated. Nor is it simply the language of sources. And the language used here is a concensus, not a POV even if it seems to us sexist. While we may be tempted to undertake a revisionist attitude to history, the reality is that she was celebrated as a beauty, and her portraits sold for record prices. It might be interesting to see how this discussion would go on a project talk page, such as Women in Red. Incidentally I think there is a distinct difference between sexism and aesthetics, which is the sense that beauty is used here. That is a subject I have spent a considerable time debating. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 12:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coda: If it helps, her daughter, considered by many as a feminist icon, used similar language. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]