Wikipedia

Talk:Jane Austen/Archive 3

< Talk:Jane Austen
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Awadewit in topic Way Forward on Jane Austen's final illness
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Addisons's disease?

Latest comment: 16 years ago37 comments5 people in discussion

So why are we going with Addison's disease and putting Tomalin in the footnote? Do other people support Honan? `Awadewit | talk —Preceding comment was added at 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A good question, and since the issue may be a source of controversy later, I'll review the sources here for others to see. Park Honan (pp. 391-392) says that Addison's disease (destruction of the adrenal glands) is the most likely diagnosis. The disease may have been due to tuberculosis or to cancer or (less commonly) an autoimmune reaction. Honan cites a 1964 article by Sir Zachary Cope, a physician, as his primary source (Zachary Cope, "Jane Austen's Last Illness," Collected Reports of the Jane Austen Society, 1 (1949-65), pp. 267-272.) Cope described his conclusions as a "surmise," reflecting the difficulties of diagnosing disease from such a distance in time and space and the limited available information. Honan notes a challenge from another (unnamed) specialist who argued that if Austen's changes in skin colour are ignored, her other symptoms can be explained by cancer or tuberculosis without adrenal involvement. Le Fay agrees that Addison's disease is the most likely explanation (Le Fay, A Family Record, p. 236), as does J. David Grey, "Life of Jane Austen," The Jane Austen Companion, p. 282, and John Wiltshire, Jane Austen and the Body, p. 221. Tomalin's position is therefore a minority position or preference, although it is well-argued and based on a consultation with a medical specialist and therefore must be mentioned. It is not entirely clear to me (even after reviewing multiple footnotes) how much of the agreement within the "Majority" position is due to general reliance on the same source (Cope), directly or indirectly. Under the circumstances, I thought that the discussion in the footnote was the appropriate place to get into the details. Simmaren (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Hodgkin's lymphoma possibility also be mentioned in passing (per my 14 Feb edit), even though it may be a minority position? It would not be hard to convey that this is not as probable as Addison's. By entirely deleting the reference to it in the article proper, and instead making it part of the footnote to Addison's, you are making it hard for researchers to find the mention. Indeed, assuming Tomalin's 'bona fides' and reputation, isn't this censorship rather like original research? Pointillist (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Several related responses to your comments:
  • The most important point to make on this issue is that we cannot know with certainty what Jane Austen's final illness was. As described above ("A good question..."), Cope described his work as a "surmise." All of the articles on this topic are essentially informed speculation.
  • Our approach has been to rely on the secondary sources. The substantial preponderance of secondary sources favors the diagnosis of Addison's disease. This article of necessity is a summary of a very large topic (all of Jane Austen's life and her work) and cannot mention every alternative theory if it is to stay within reasonable bounds of size and scope. The article is explicit that the diagnosis of Addison's disease is uncertain ("the first signs of what may have been Addison's disease") and the footnote discusses the alternate theory you prefer and refers readers to the sources where they can find more detailed information.
  • The discussion above includes a detailed discussion of the sources for those who are interested and even indicates a question I had about the majority position. We're not hiding anything or suppressing anything; I believe that we've been responsible.
  • The main article will be accompanied and supported by a number of subsidiary articles. Two are cross-referenced now (Reception history of Jane Austen and Janeite) and others are planned (Jane Austen's Family, Juvenilia). If you are interested in researching and writing it, a separate article on Jane Austen's Final Illness would be a great addition. There would be room in such an article for all of the nuances. Simmaren (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see why you want to put your rationale into a footnote, but researchers are more likely to read it if you make it clear that the reference is more than just a citation, e.g. "Early in 1816, Jane Austen began to feel unwell, showing the first signs of what may (see footnote[xx]) have been Addison's disease." :That's only 15 more characters, and doesn't materially reduce readability of the article. Your suggested Jane Austen's Final Illness is an excellent idea. Pointillist (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Your suggestion for a more visible reference to the footnote is a good one. We'll have to be careful that the footnote number remains correct as the article changes. I'll think about this. Simmaren (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If the information is notable enough for "see footnote", it belongs in the body of the article, not a footnote. In particular, if there are multiple plausible theories about the nature of her illness, that should be addressed within the article, as WP:NPOV calls for: The prevailing view should get the most coverage, but other views should be acknowledged in the article, to avoid the appearance of POV selection. The article doesn't need to give them equal space; just a mention with a footnote to the source should be enough to direct the attention of the curious. By the way, I have my doubts that the subject of her illness is big enough to require a separate article (there isn't enough content in the current article to support one), and it seems a peculiar choice of subtopic to try to make stand on its own, but if you do so, Jane Austen's final illness would be the proper capitalization... unless that's now the proper name of whatever killed her. :) - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with Awadewit's suggestion; after all, it is utilized in the Shakespeare article, which is Featured. It does not go against NPOV to list tangential theories or asides in the footnotes rather than spelling everything out in the prose. Jason, you may not be that familiar with Austen scholarship, but her illness is quite the cause of contention for some; for the sake of comprehensiveness, however, some subjects cannot be explained at length in the main article which already have so much to explain. I don't doubt that there is enough written about Austen's illness to warrant its own article, but I truly see no issue with extra footnotes for the time being. It's quite scholarly. María (habla conmigo) 22:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not an Austen scholar; I bring other perspectives to the discussion. It's customary for an article to be split out only when it has demonstrated that it's too big for its parent article, but if my doubts are unfounded as you say, I'm not standing in the way of it. However, for this article at this time, if her illness is the subject of contention, then that contention must be addressed in the body of the article. Including only the majority POV in the body of the article and relegating the others to a footnote may be the "scholarly" way to handle it, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's NPOV standards. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
As Tomalin is in a minority of one here, I think that placing her explanation in a footnote is perfectly acceptable per WP:UNDUE. Awadewit | talk 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait. María says that her illness is "quite the cause of contention". But you tell me that only one crank disagrees. It's a subject with enough substance to support an entire article. But it can be summed up with a passing reference to Disease A and a footnote. Pardon me for not knowing what to believe here. Maybe this will help: It's not Wikipedia's job to tell the reader what killed her. The goal is to present the information and opinions that are out there, whether you find them personally convincing or not (which is not where this discussion has been headed). Look at how this has been done elsewhere: the majority viewpoint is that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays, but the article about him states that this has been questioned, and even names a few of the suspects. Why not do something like that? "Most scholars believe she was ill with Addison's disease, though tuberculosis, an autoimmune disease, and Hodgkin's lymphoma have also been suggested." Plus footnotes. It's that easy. At least it would be if you weren't trying so hard to make it so hard. -JasonAQuest (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Tomalin seems to be in the minority in regards to this particular theory. There are numerous theories regarding Austen's illness and cause of death, however. I agree that one footnote pointing this out is more than satisfactory. María (habla conmigo) 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hiding the information in a footnote (especially when it would be trivially easy to present it in the article) looks like an attempt to sweep other POVs under the rug. Whether that's your intention or not, that's the outcome. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No one ever said Tomalin was a crank - we simply said she was alone in her view. Therefore it makes sense to put her view in a footnote so as to not misrepresent the weight given to her view in the Austen scholarship. Simmaren has clearly outlined all of this above. According to WP:NPOV it is the article's job to outline all of the major opinions on the issue while at the same time not presenting outlying views as if they were given equal weight in the scholarship. That is what we are trying to do here - accurately represent the scholarship. We are not trying to be difficult - we are trying to be accurate while still adhering to Wikipedia's core policy of NPOV. It is not always easy and I appreciate your patience while we carefully try to find the best solution. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By deprecating it to being mentioned only as a footnote (literally!), that makes it look like the opinion of a non-notable crank. I've offered a suggestion for how to characterize the range of opinions within the article itself; what's wrong with it? Too much information? Not conclusive enough? Not your idea? - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A non-notable crank would not be used as a resource. Awadewit | talk 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Many thanks to Awadewit for setting up the substantive notes. Probably lots of effort and it looks good to me.
  • Personally I'm neutral on whether it was Addison's, Hodgkins or whatever, but I think Upfal's article is worth looking at. I'm doubtful that the Tomalin/Upfal hypothesis could be WP:UNDUE, especially if the majority (Addison's) view might be based principally on a single source (Cope). Bottom line: JasonAQuest's suggested text might be better in this situation, but if that's unacceptable then Simmaren's explicit pointer to the footnote might not be needed - the note could be attached to "may" instead, e.g. "first signs of what may[i] have been Addison's disease.". Also: thanks to everyone who responded so professionally (scholarlyly?) to my neophyte comments. Pointillist (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If everyone can hang on until next week, perhaps we can hash this out using quotations from all of the sources (always the best way, really). I am much too busy this week to track down all of books, but I can do that next week. Awadewit | talk 22:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You are all clearly very committed and honorable contributors and I am sorry that this rather technical point has taken so much effort to agree. I suspect that what we need next is someone to organize an expert medical conference on the subject and publish the results. Pointillist (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI the original 1964 BMJ articles are now online at PubMed Central (no registration required). BMJ Leader introducing Cope's article: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1816121&blobtype=pdf, Cope's article: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1816080&blobtype=pdf. Bevan's letter (8 Aug 64) suggesting Hodgkin's: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1816385&blobtype=pdf. A PDF of the Upfal article is at http://mh.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/31/1/3 and is much easier to read than the HTML version. Pointillist (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have begun a work page for notes on the various sources that deal with Austen's final illness: Notes on Jane Austen's Final Illness. We will take notes for posterity and then sum up. Simmaren (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • This is so generous of you, but I actually think we should take all of the notes here so that the archives are easily available from the Austen page rather than from your userpage. After having been involved in a fair number of these disputes, I've found out that the evidence should always be easily available on the talk pages of the article itself rather than on userpages. There is an idea that people "own" userpages while no one owns the article pages. What about making a subpage to this page? Awadewit | talk 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's fine - the Simmaren subpage was really only an expedient so that I could get going with note taking. I'll create a subpage here and copy and paste the text at some point this weekend, then get rid of mine. I looked at WP:SP and I think we can get away with a subpage here with notes - it's not expressly forbidden. :) If it turns out to have been forbidden, we'll simply put the notes here. Simmaren (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Simmaren, I've added a Medical commentators and their qualifications section to your subpage and put the article links into it, plus links to bio details for the medics. Cope (1964), Beck (c. 1997) and Frazer (c. 2005) are prima facie equally eminent diagnosticians, and Bevan's (1964) comments were acceptable to the BMJ editor, so in a sense Cope's Addison's diagnosis is already the minority position. The literary analyses by Honan (1987), Fergus (1991) and Wiltshire (1992) pre-date the input from Beck-via-Tomalin and Frazer-via-Upfal; Smithers (1986) is sitting on the fence according to your quotes. So I'm still concerned about you and Awadewit spending too much time on this, because it could just come down to a debate about the medical evidence, which would be O.R. Are there any more recent medical commentators who support Cope's hypothesis of Addison's? Pointillist (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • O.K. - I've set up a subpage to this page for the notes, copied the existing notes into it and corrected the link in my original post. From now on, let's put all additional relevant material here. I plan to retain the subpage in my userspace for a few days, then will get rid of it. Simmaren (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pointillist: thanks for the additional material. By the time we're finished, we should be able to evaluate the best course of action on this issue. As for the time it takes, we all have other demands on our time, but this is in my opinion worth doing because it is an issue that seems to arise periodically. When I first started work on this article (almost a year ago) it was linked (by someone with a great deal of confidence in retrospective diagnosis) to a category of persons who died of tuberculosis. Simmaren (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've finished taking notes until my return from vacation in about ten days. I'm not sure how I feel about the Uphal article. I want to read it again and think about it. Anyone else who wants to is welcome to add to the notes from other relevant sources. Simmaren (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any additional medical expert commentary on this question—none has been cited in the various biographical sources I've used, although there could be something out there that was too recent or too obscure to show. My background is historical and biographical research rather than medicine or science, however, so I'm not the best person to look. Simmaren (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I appreciate what you're putting into this. A good example of WP community working together on a problem. Simmaren (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Way Forward on Jane Austen's final illness

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
  • I believe (1) we've gone about as far as we can go in reviewing the sources for the various positions taken by scholars on the nature of Austen's final illness and (2) the article's current presentation is supportable. However, it may be preferable, in light of the uncertainties, not to identify any specific illness in the main text and to move the discussion of the various theories into the footnote. What does everyone think? Simmaren (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I sympathise with your frustration and desire for closure. Here's my take:
  • The Addison's diagnosis is no longer the only one that should be mentioned in the main article, because: (a) there have been persistent suggestions of Hodgkin's from Bevan, Beck-via-Tomalin and Frazer-via-Upfal; and (b) we have found no citable sources that have considered both Addison's and Hodgkin's and yet still prefer Addison's. To a scientist (b) would be a decisive argument against leaving Addison's as the only diagnosis in a 2008 edit.
  • Our current sources cannot support a definitive conclusion because (i) no medic has commented on Bevan's 1964 letter to the BMJ, (ii) Cope's supporters haven't considered it, (iii) Beck (consulted by Tomalin) is eminent but never published an opinion on this in his own name, (iv) Frazer (consulted by Upfal) is likewise eminent and never published on this issue, (v) critiques of Upfal by Bill Coote (JASA) and Cheryl Kinney and Cynthia Lopez (JASNA) are not in the public domain.
  • In the absence of a definite conclusion, there's enough material to support a short Jane Austen's final illness article. I know this is a pain, but we should do it as an act of scholarship. From the legal point of view, Addison's is not proven, and in a criminal case might be "contrary to the weight of evidence" (Sir Patrick Devlin, Trial by Jury (1956), page 65), plus whatever Dworkin, Hart, Denning et al might say if I dug through my jurisprudence library.
  • The new article will be a better place (than the main article) to review contrary positions and any new evidence.
  • Anyway, there's now too much material to consign to a footnote (I have always been concerned about the idea of using a footnote to correct a misleading impression in the main article).
I therefore suggest the main article be arranged along these lines:
Illness and death
Main article: Jane Austen final illness ...which we have to finalise
The final illness of Jane Austen, and the date symptoms began, is still an open issue. She may have suffered from Addison's disease, Hodgkin's lymphoma and/or tuberculosis. Austen ignored her illness at first...
Pointillist (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it correct to say that most of the biographies on Jane Austen list Addison's disease? (I think that is what I am seeing in the notes.) I'm curious as to why there is this divide between physicians publishing a diagnosis of Hodgkin's and biographers publishing a diagnoses of Addison's. A full article might illuminate the uncertainties of retrospective diagnoses (which we should make clearer in the article, I think), but in the "Jane Austen" article itself we might describe the division of opinion that way. I don't have time to work on Death of Jane Austen (we're not even finished with Jane Austen!) but it would be wonderful, Pointillist, if you could work on that! Awadewit (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not accurate to say that biographers choose Addison's disease (Tomalin and Upfal preferred Hodgkin's lymphoma after consulting with physicians) and physicians choose Hodgkin's disease (Cope, a physician, published the original diagnosis of Addison's disease). Simmaren (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I continue to prefer omitting a diagnosis altogether from the text of the main article and discussing the alternative diagnoses with citations in a footnote (and at length in a subarticle if one is prepared). To do otherwise would be, in my opinion, to treat this subject at a level of detail inconsistent with the scope and focus of the main article. Simmaren (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My original suggestion for a subarticle on this topic was at least half in jest. I found the topic more interesting than I expected as I read the sources, so perhaps it's a good idea. I won't have much time to help either, unfortunately. Simmaren (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What I meant was the majority of biographers report that Austen died of Addison's - sorry, I should have been clearer (we will never find unanimity on this point). I don't think we can leave this crucial piece of information out of the article. Most readers don't read footnotes. It has always been obvious that the diagnosis was tentative and retrospective - that should be emphasized. What about a statement such as: "Relying on Dr. Vincent Cope's retrospective and tentative diagnosis, most biographers list her cause of death as Addison's disease." Then we insert the footnote. Tomalin is still the only biographer who doesn't do this, thus making the statement correct. We cannot leave out a cause of death when such a cause is reported in every major biography - we have to try and resolve this somehow. Awadewit (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
What one or two sentences would you propose? Awadewit (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As Wikipedia editors try to reach consensus, let's try another suggestion. How about: "While the majority of Austen biographers rely on Dr. Vincent Cope's retrospective and tentative diagnosis and list her cause of death as Addison's disease, her final illness has also been described as Hodgkins lymphoma." Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a good summary, isn't it? I wasn't sure how to splice it cleanly into the first sentence. However, it works quite well as the last sentence in the paragraph, which means the "showing the first signs..." stuff can be scrapped, so all the diagnosis stuff is subordinated as it should be IMO. I've made the change - please take a look at it. It might be cleaner to replace "While" with "however" and replace "retrospective" with "1964" (example below):
The majority of Austen biographers rely on Dr. Vincent Cope's tentative 1964 diagnosis and list her cause of death as Addison's disease. However, her final illness has also been described as Hodgkins lymphoma.
  • Your revision is excellent and I've put it into the article. I'm thinking we can archive this talk page now. What do you think? (By the way, once you have created the Death of Jane Austen article, please add it to the Template:Jane Austen - thanks again for doing that. We have our hands full just writing about her life and her works from a broad perspective. We haven't even attempted all of the novels yet!) Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Closure at last! Yes, this Talk page can be archived (so long as I can still reach the shared sandbox page). I wish there was some easy way to start the Talk page with a (horizontal) list of the headings in the archive pages: it would help avoid editors re-opening issues without having seen earlier discussions. I may not get to the illness article immediately. I still think it should be done but I'm not sure about the best way to organize it (wondering whether there should be some summary of symptoms first to set the context, not sure about how to separate the medical from the biographical, etc). Pointillist (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I plan on moving over the sandbox page - I'll do that before I archive the page. I'll also add descriptions to the archives - that should help people figure out what has already been discussed. I don't know the best way to organize the article, either, but at least with computers you can try out several rather easily! Awadewit (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

awkward and irregular image alignment and info box

Latest comment: 16 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Who placed the requests against normalization of article layout and alignment? I know that infoboxes are optional- they are also, however, standard, especially for pages of this length. Also there is no discussion of the portrait here. I request that whoever decreed that the page should be laid out as it is justify their reasoning here, and Identify themselves. Please remember that Wikipedia has no dictators. Rudy Breteler (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon further research I have come to the (non-authoritative) conclusion that standard formatting is not optional, and portrait alignment bears no influence upon this. I have amended the article layout per standard formatting. Please discuss objections here. I might suggest using a mirror image of the portrait, if that would satisfy your complaints.Rudy Breteler (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not know that this conversation had taken place elsewhere. Is there a reason that this debate is not located here? Rudy Breteler (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The talk page had become too long and we needed to make space for new conversations. I have changed the hidden comment in the article to reflect the location of the discussions. Awadewit | talk 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, the situation before had the effect of hiding the discussion from newcomers. I have reviewed the old discussions and I must say I am throughly dissatisfied with them and their outcomes. I voiced my concern on the archived page (I know that this is not standard procedure but I see no alternative, it is impossible to effectively respond here now that the discussion is gone.) I hope more people come to weigh in on this and reverse what I feel is a very poor decision with regards to the unusual layout of this page.Rudy Breteler (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the aesthetics with this alignment are terrible. This seems to me to be a decision taken by only two editors which rubs a number of us the wrong way. I also strongly object to the archiving of this talk page- doing so lessons the ability for causal editors to comment upon this debate, relocating it to a harder to locate location. I strongly support standard page alignment (picture on right, info box on left). One of our goals as editors should be to standardize all articles so that the follow the same basic layout and structure, in just the way that we try to standardize the rules so that they all follow the same standards in their wording and presentation. I encourage further reflection upon this issue, but though I personally condemn the current layout, I will not change it until others have weighed in upon the subject. Rudy Breteler (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, a decree by two editors does not make their decision law. I urge Awadewit and Simmaren to be more respectful of the communal collaboration aspect of the Wikipedia project. While appreciative of your efforts towards this page, the community does not afford you special privilege in making policy decisions with regards to it. Rudy Breteler (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am posting your comments here (above) as archive pages are not supposed to be altered per the instructions at the top: "This is an archive of past discussions. Please 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." RudyB, as is explained multiple times on the talk page archive, this alignment follows the WP:MOS, specifically WP:MOS#Images. We are being respectful of Wikipedia's consensus, both at the MOS (which recently reaffirmed this kind of alignment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style) and on this talk page. Also, archiving the talk page is standard when it becomes too long and unwieldly; such archiving takes place throughout the encyclopedia. The arguments for this layout and against standardization for the sake of standardization are laid out clearly in the archive and need not be repeated here. Awadewit | talk 06:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The length of the archived discussions, when added to this one, and the voluminous back-and-forth on this issue there and here, demonstrate that Awadewit and I have been "respectful of the communal collaboration aspect of the Wikipedia project." You are correct that the WP community does not afford, and has not afforded, either of us a special privilege in making policy decisions. The issue is aesthetics, not policy. We have strong aesthetic views which we have in good faith supported by reasoned argument - as the Wikipedia ethic would have us do. We've invested a lot of time and effort making our arguments, out of respect for people who disagree with us. I believe WP:GF is relevant here. Simmaren (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an active editor on this page; I'm watching it mainly because I worked on some Austen family trees. I am posting just to note that I support the lack of infobox and layout of the lead, with the left-aligned image and the right-hand TOC. I see Rudy Breteler is concerned that Awadewit and Simmaren are imposing their view without significant support from other editors, so I wanted to register my agreement with the current choice of layout. Mike Christie (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A lengthy discussion by itself actually demonstrates little more than persistence. When a formatting choice advocated by an opinionated minority prevails over the repeated objections of various others, that is not consensus in action. I recognize your good faith in advocating it, but the opposition represents equally good faith, and I don't sense much openness to that. What does it tell you that people keep trying to "fix" it?

In principle, I agree with you. I'm a strong supporter of the principle that people shouldn't be staring off the page, and I've avoided it whenever practical in the many newspaper and newsletter pages I've laid out, and in the graphic novel pages I've drawn. However, I am also trained in user interface design, which I practice professionally, and I find the inconsistency and ideosyncracy of this page offensive to that aesthetic. A Wikipedia page is more than just a visual object in isolation; it is a functional one that interoperates with the whole. Navigational elements should not bounce left and right from one page to the next. That's simply bad interface design, and I wouldn't implement it just to avoid breaking a relatively minor visual design rule. As an analogy: A large image which was predominantly orange on a page littered with blue and purple links would offend my color sensibilities, but I wouldn't change that page's color scheme to accommodate that, because it would break the functional meanings of the colors used (e.g. blue=link, purple=visited link).

 

The suggestion that the image be flipped seems quite reasonable to me. At worst it "misrepresents" the direction in which Austen's hair was curled, and which arm she preferred to have on top when she crossed them. (And for all we know, that might have been directed by her sister.) This is no worse than the portrait's other "misrepresentations", such as the biologically improbable placement of her eye sockets. :) And contrary to the assertion that "there is only one accurate image of this sketch" no image faithfully reproduces the original work (the one in the article suffers from poor color reproduction, which I would also like to see corrected), so the argument of artistic purity doesn't hold much water.

I think that letting Austen look awkwardly askance, or redirecting her gaze leftward (in either case leaving the image on the right side) would be less aesthetically offensive compromises than removing the infobox and placing the TOC in a strange location. And there's an astounding preponderance of support for this general layout throughout Wikipedia. So... why should that aesthetic preference be dismissedhere? -JasonAQuest (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In the case of guidelines (as opposed to policy), the usual situation is that consensus on individual article talk pages is how the decisions are made. Guidelines that are widely approved of tend to garner more support in those discussions. So I would suggest that consensus here is the way to answer the question.
I didn't participate in the earlier debate but from a brief scan of the conversation above it appears that there are three editors who support the current layout, and two that do not. If other editors of this page want to chip in with their opinion then that could change the outcome, but based just on this discussion we don't have a consensus to change the layout. Mike Christie (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If you read the archive and the edit history, you will find more people who think the current layout is less desireable. -JasonAQuest (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote. If you read the discussion carefully, you will note that we have already moved the TOC as part of the consensus-building process. We have also followed WP:MOS#Images, which is a product of consensus and left-alignment of right-facing images and right of editors of individual pages to hammer out individual layouts rather than having one prescribed layout was just reaffirmed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style. I have already laid out my arguments numerous times (Talk:Jane Austen/Archive 2) regarding this issue and since there are no new arguments here, I see no reason to repeat them again. Awadewit | talk 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, but it is a process in which the recurrence and frequency of objections must be considered. My arguments may sound like those of someone else you've already heard from, but they are not; they are an expression of my feelings, assessments, and ideas. I have read your arguments, and as I indicated, I understand and respect them. I even agree with some of them, on a level. But I don't find them persuasive enough to mandate the cascade of compromises needed to accommodate that single aesthetic preference.
Keep in mind that Consensus Can Change: "A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." That's what seems to be happening here. In fact, ever since the infobox was removed and the image moved to the left, people have routinely attempted to change the article back and/or question the decision. (Moving the TOC has compounded the problem, IMprofessionalO.) This volatility - and especially the need for reversion of good-faith edits to enforce a particular version of it - indicates that no consensus has actually been reached. This is very much an open discussion, and I would appreciate it if you didn't treat it as if it were a closed question. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can change, certainly. When an article is popular, issues may have to be revisited many times; but unless there appears to be a reasonable chance that the status quo might be changed, there's not much incentive for most editors to re-engage in a discussion they've already participated in. I think if others who watch this article want to comment, they are free to do so. Your posts are the right way to prompt that discussion, but unless some other editors post to support your points I think it's not unreasonable of Awadewit to say that the discussion hasn't effectively been reopened. I suggest we wait and see who else comments, on either side of the issue. Mike Christie (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"Reopened"? Who decided it was closed? For the past few months, the "status quo" for this article's layout has been change. It's been a slow tug-of-war between those who find the peculiar formatting of this article off-putting, and those who restore it. Some participate through their edits, some participate through their discussions, and some participate through their reverts. But it's clearly not settled, and hasn't been since the layout was first altered. I think there's a reasonable chance that that status quo might be changed, which is what I'm trying to accomplish. Doing so would first require that the open discussion about the contradictory advice in WP:MOS#Images be resolved. - JasonAQuest (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Portrait of Jane Austen is reversed

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The image of of Jane Austen (uploaded by User:Kyd at 20:13 on 31 December 2006) currently used in the Jane Austen article seems to have been reversed so that the sitter is looking to our right (her left). This appears to be an error in the cited source "The Face of Jane Austen" in Jane Austen's Regency World magazine (issue 1 Jan/Feb 2003, per listing by the Jane Austen Centre in Bath). The original sketch by Cassandra Austen displayed at the National Portrait Gallery portrays her looking to our left (her right).

Sources (all accessed in the past 12 hours):

  • National Portrait Gallery image NPG3630 at http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?search=sp&sText=NPG3630&rNo=0 (primary source)
  • Stapleton, Michael (Ed). Cambridge Guide to English Literature, page 38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press & Newnes Books, 1983. ISBN 0-521-25647-X. (secondary source)
  • Le Faye, Deirdre. Jane Austen: A Family Record. Second Edition, plate 13 on page 83 and plate reference on page vii "watercolour by Cassandra, c.1810? Courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, London (reg. no. 3630)." Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-521-53417-8. (secondary source)
  • Inside front covers "a drawing by her sister Cassandra, in the National Portrait Gallery" of Penguin English Library editions of Mansfield Park (1966, ISBN 0140430164), Northanger Abbey (1972, ISBN 0140430741), Lady Susan/The Watsons/Sanditon (1974, ISBN 0140431020).
  • Front cover "by courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery" of Tomalin, Claire. Jane Austen: A Life. London: Penguin Books, 1997 revised and updated 2000. ISBN 0140296907 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
  • Images used by the Jane Austen Society biography and Jane Austen Society of North America biography.
  • My personal inspection of the original at National Portrait Gallery London, on 2008-03-26 at 14:00 UTC. (original research)

Am I missing something here? Pointillist (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • OMG. That's what I get for trusting the uploader! We've been arguing about left-hand placement for months when we could just have flipped the portrait to its original alignment. I will re-upload the image and then we won't have to have the image alignment argument anymore! Yeah! Thank you so much for noticing this! Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Thank you, Pointillist. Accurate is best. Simmaren (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jane_Austen/Archive_3&oldid=789391314"