Talk:Virginia Woolf

External Video

The link to the BBC website and a video of Woolf is effectively dead for many of us since it requires Flash. This should be removed or a warning placed on the page caption.

Note

It is necessary to add the word "antisemite" in the section "Attitudes toward Judaism, Christianity and fascism". The examples are already there, but someone shies away from the crucial word which describes her attitude (my guess is that has been censored/forbidden by Woolf's feminist fanboys/fangirls)

sexist language

"bore him a daughter" and "presented him with a child" are quite sexist. I suggest "A child was born to them" or "They had a child." 69.113.75.89 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"A child was born to them" sounds a bit Biblical to me, but in the process of updating that section I changed it to "they had a daughter". Ligaturama (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Mrs Dalloway

Template:Mrs Dalloway has been nominated for merging with Template:Example. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is omission to VW surviving incest sexual assault?

This was a very formative part of her life shaping so many aspects of her work and her personal life. Jaeleaj (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

And why are women referred to as "females" (the scientific term). Human females are women. Thanks to those of you who have been cleaning up the sexist language here.El Cubedo (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Unwieldy bibliography and selected publications

Obviously a huge amount of effort has gone into the bibliography and selected publications, but I think in their current state they detract from the article as a whole.

Bibliography: it contains over 400 entries, over 100 of which aren't cited in the article body. It's split into sections down to three sublevels at one point, and even has its own notes and references. Its size and complex structure makes it very awkward to read, maintain and update. We could move the uncited works into a Further Reading section, but listing over 100 of these seems somewhat excessive. I propose deleting the uncited works outright, except perhaps for any particularly significant biographies or analyses that aren't cited for whatever reason. My preference would also be to remove the subheadings, or at least to limit them to Books, Articles and Other.

Selected publications: we already have Virginia Woolf bibliography, which doesn't list specific editions or link out to texts but is much easier to read (probably as a consequence of it being simpler). There are refs to some of these works but many of them seem to be inserted when the works are mentioned in passing, which is unnecessary. I propose moving any of the works that are cited due to their contents down into the Bibliography, and replacing this section with "Works" and keeping only the Template:Main that points to Virginia Woolf bibliography.

Any thoughts on the above welcome. Ligaturama (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree. The article is still far too long, despite a redlink user taking out 25K bytes in January (has this been checked over?). One could try shifting the whole lot to List of works about Virginia Woolf - as you say, a lot of work has been put in - then returning those used, plus say 10-15 as "further reading". I really don't like mixing used and used sources together, & personally I don't think WP is in the business of providing bibliographies. None of the main authors have edited the article in the last 5 years, I see. Conceivably the content in Virginia Woolf bibliography, much easier to follow, and here could just be swopped? Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)