# Talk:Julia Stephen

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) 

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

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)

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)
@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)
@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)

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)

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

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

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)
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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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