Talk:Sense and Sensibility
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The information that was added on 12 July 2005 is copied from context and Summary
Contents |
[edit] Copyright violation
Substantial portions of this article, including the sections titled Context, Plot summary, and Literary significance & criticism, were copied directly from SparkNotes: Sense and Sensibility: Context and SparkNotes: Sense and Sensibility: Summary. I have removed these sections from the article. We cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Plmoknijb 10:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New plot summary
I've added a new Plot Summary. It's not copied from anywhere :) --Alnaschar 11:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relationship of girls to elderly owner of Norwood
The relationship of the girls to the elderly owner of Norwood may not be correctly presented in the article. Chapter One of the text seems to say the elderly Dashwood is being cared for a niece/nephew, the parents of the three girls. The Wikipedia article states that the three girls are the daughters of the elderly Dashwood's 2nd wife. Yet the girls' father receives an inheritance from Dashwood and dies shortly after Dashwood does, according to the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Viewpoints
Deleted text:
- ... the two sisters may have been loosely based on the author and her beloved elder sister Cassandra, with Austen casting Cassandra as the restrained and well-judging sister and herself as the emotional one. Austen clearly intended to vindicate Elinor's sense and self-restraint, and on the simplest level, the novel may be read as a parody of the full-blown romanticism and sensibility that was fashionable around the 1790s. Yet ...
May have been? Clearly intended? May be read as? Whose ideas are these?
The only part of the above which is common knowledge is the idea that Elinor represents "sense", i.e., restraint; while Marianne represents "sensibility", i.e., emotionalism.
Everyone knows that in this novel the title refers to the character traits of its two main characters, as in the "pride" of the rich man and the "prejudice" of Lizzy in Pride and Prejudice. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Woeful editing
WHOA! --drop your doughnut on the keyboard and this is what happens; my little (simple) edit snagged the previous two (very worthy) edits and aims to Undo them --not my intent! I shall try to set all right again, but if I cannot then please help. --Jbeans 01:05 21 Feb 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 06:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re Link formatting
Re link formatting; Elinor Dashwood is currently the only one of the "Characters" who is reported as a Main article, and therefore with a separate page; all which justifies internal link formatting, which I added. Otherwise, until another character, e.g., Marianne Dashwood, is developed as a main article or separate page status, I move that we do not provide link formatting that has no place to go.
Finally, regarding which additional characters to develop further, I recommend that Marianne and possibly Willoughby are it; IMO, Colonel Brandon and Edward Ferrars are below the short list.--Jbeans (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't Colonel Brandon be on a par with Willoughby, since the two characters seem to have a complementary relationship? CiudadanoGlobal (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] USD?
I really don't see the point in adding a "translation" into 2007 US dollars for monetary amounts in this article. I think the magnitude of the sums involved is clearly described by comparison with JAs annual income. Most readers of this article presumably do not use US dollars routinely anyway (I am guessing, but surely more than 50% of English Wikipedia readers are outside the US) so it is meaningless to them. Rachel Pearce (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has established standards for providing monetary equivalents in articles, and generally the USD is considered pretty typical considering its status as the world's primary reserve currency (although the Euro is gaining considerable traction of late). It's probably a judgment call when it comes to providing historical equivalents. In this case, when I was reading the original work, I found myself wondering just how much, say, 50,000 pounds (in 1811) was in today's terms. The story makes a lot more sense when one realizes that somebody *could* retire on the *equivalent* of 5,000,000 dollars in 2007 (the most current year for which full conversion data exists). Also, surprisingly enough, even though a lot of countries have English as their primary language, most English speakers (I believe around 60%) worldwide are American; in any case, as previously mentioned, the US dollar is understood globally, with only the Euro coming in a still distant second. If no one has any serious objections, I will put back the equivalents; please let me know whether you have any suggestions for a preferred format. (This might be a good area for some Wiki template development.) CiudadanoGlobal (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia may well have standards about monetary equivalents IF they are given, but does it mandate monetary equivalents even in articles about works of fiction? The part where you added UDS equivalents was the discussion of publication, and nothing to do with the plot. I still think the comparison with her annual income is sufficient. BTW I think your figure for the percentage of English speakers worldwide who are from the US is either wrong or it is "English as a first language" speakers ("English mother tongue"). English speakers as a second or other language are also likely to refer to English Wikipedia. Rachel Pearce (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)