Talk:Brontë family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBrontë family was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

untitled[edit]

What was their father's original name? RickK 03:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Padraig mac Aedh Ó Proinntigh. He lived from 1777 to 1861, was born in Co. Down the eldest of ten children born to Aedh Ó Proinntigh and his wife Ellen Mhic Labhradha. --Angr/tɔk mi 6 July 2005 07:50 (UTC) (but information from Fergananim)Nearly this entire page is taken from The Bronte Parsonage Website - but I'm too cautious to blank and copy vio! Can anyone back me up here? Cabiria 19:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am backing you up. I will add the copy violation text. Noirdame 09:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I think you should keep some text that is just raw information, though. 66.229.182.113 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

The accent over the 'e' in 'Brontë' indicates that it's not really English cuz there aren't any accents in English, so where exactly does the name 'Brontë' come from? ~Sushi 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bronte invented it. His real name was Brunty or Prunty. He was an Irish traitor who changed his name to an invented pretentious one to disguise the nationality he was ashamed of.

He (Mr.Brunty, Punty or Prunty) was the son of a foundling from England, so his nationality is up for discussion - by the way you are only a 'traitor' if you denounce others, not yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.215.8 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly Patrick Brunty admired the great British Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronté, and changed his name to honor Nelson. That would also explain the accent mark, since the King of the Two Sicilies, Ferdinand, created Nelson a Duke in appreciation for his victory over the French at the Battle of the Nile, in 1798. References for that supposition would be welcomed here. Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)dthomsen8[reply]
The Brontës certainly admired Nelson, but Wellington was their favourite. Robert Ferrieux (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of new references will arrive with the translation of the very complete French article.--Kudpung (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biography[edit]

The notorious book of Gaskell should not be called a biography. Gaskell had no idea what a biography really is. What she wrote is just a cumulation of gossip. If you want to be informed about the Brontës, reading Juliet Barkers book ist a MUST! Sorry for expressing myself in such a dictatorial way, but as the Oxford Companion to Englisch Literature states, there are "many legends but few certainties" especially about Emily.

If you could just source your statements then we can add this to the article. SmokeyJoe 06:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of new references will arrive with the translation of the very complete French article.--Kudpung (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

You're invited to visit the page Les Brontë in the French version of Wikipedia. Your comments will be most welcome in its talk page. Please express your views in English. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.254.240.183 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great article. Well done if you wrote it. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I have added an expand tag for translators to use French article to expand this one. Keith D (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The translation is now in progress. Please see the info template below.--Kudpung (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption[edit]

The Bronte sisters were said in Scientific American to have died of tuberculosis, anyone can verify and include references to that?24.184.234.24 (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)LeucineZipper[reply]

Lots of new references will arrive with the translation of the very complete French article.--Kudpung (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation[edit]

Since the only ref given (forvo.com) gives both "Brontee" and "Brontay", I've edited each Brontë article to include both pronunciations. (Brontë, Anne Brontë, Charlotte Brontë, Emily Brontë and Branwell Brontë.) If anyone can find a source showing one or the other to be correct, feel free to remove the wrong one. Lfh (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from French Wikipedia article[edit]

I will be working on translating relevant parts from the French Wikipedia featured article for embedding in this article. To keep everything together, please only discuss this work on its associated talk page. The work in progress is here: User:Kudpung/Brontë translation, please feel free to use any English text that I will have completed. Please be gentle with your criticisms - I am not a scholar of these works by the Brontes. As soon as the first of any of the translations have been used, please put this template on the top of this talk page: {{Translated|fr|Les Brontë}} Thanks for you help in moving this important article forward. --Kudpung (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

 Done --Kudpung (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article a joke?[edit]

Origin of the name Bronte at the start with much content given to the country the father disowned with all his heart? Perhaps we should edit many of the Irish entries with their English/British origins and stick them right at the start of the article?Twobells (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fr.Wiki article is vastly superior to our own mediocre effort to produce an article on such a milestone in English literary history. The translation of the very lengthy article is nearing completion, which will probably render superfluous any comments here for a while.--Kudpung (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation done. Still a work in progress.[edit]

The translation has been done and the content of the original English article has been included. The French article was significantly longer than is recommended for the en.Wiki and some material has been split off to sub 'main article' pages while others, namely main pages for the members of the family, are being prepared in my user space. --Kudpung (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my marking of diff 366438062 (Article replaced by heavily edited translation from the fr.Wiki article. Existing en.Wiki text incorporated. See Talk.) as m for minor was totally inadvertent. The edit was of course the major event in the article's entire history. --Kudpung (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say so, but this article does now read somewhat like a translation, and not an altogether good one. Many phrases seem poorly worded and difficult to understand. For example: "Nothing would foretell the gifts that these children were to demonstrate from their youngest ages." What does this mean? If the children demonstrated their gifts from "their youngest ages," then nobody needed to "foretell" anything, yet this sentence seems to be saying there was nothing at all remarkable about the children. Also: "Since their early deaths, and then the death of their father in 1861, they were subject to a following that did not cease to grow." It sounds very strange to describe the sisters as being successful beginning with their early deaths. And what did the death of their father have to do with the sisters' literary following? I find myself wishing someone with knowledge of the subject would give this article a thorough reworking for clarity and accuracy. 69.181.70.238 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The translation is pretty accurate and was done by a bilingual, professional linguist. However, the quality of prose in the source language (the original French article), although at first sight appears to be of an academic standard, is questionable. Many of the turns of phrase are unclear or ambiguous, and such items have been translated more or less literally, especially to give people like you a chance to improve them - which is precisely what Wikipedia is all about. Therefore, if you feel strongly enough about it, why not have go at fixing it yourself: Rewrite the prose wherever necessary, check for correct translation, and look up and find new information to improve the content.--Kudpung (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the statement on your talk page, if you use Wikipedeia frequently, you will find a great many articles are permanently in development. Brontë is not an article that has been placed here by a crackpot, and it is under constant review. The people working on it are very aware of its imperfections; You should have seen what was here before ! (You can do this by clicking HERE). Again, as you know how to edit here, and again if you feel strongly enough about it, why not do the tagging yourself? Nobody owns the articles here, and your help would be appreciated.)--Kudpung (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article workshop[edit]

Some parts of the article might be stored temporarily in the Talk:Brontë/article workshop while they are undergoing a major edit or rewrite.

Structure[edit]

The structure of this article is quite bizarre, it jumps about and frequently repeats itself. I really dont think it necessary to have two separate sections on each of the sisters. Also the section headings are more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. I'll think about it.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French article on the The Brontës[edit]

The article has now been edited, wikified, made clearer, terser in style, the flowery bits have been deleted, with added references and fewer notes. The structure has been changed (it was previously designed so as to ensure that each section is autonomous), the repetitions deleted, all reiteration avoided.
You might wish to have a look at the cluster of articles on the Brownings, Robert Browning and corollaries (including Elizabeth Barrett Browning). Robert Ferrieux Robert Ferrieux (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 21:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Quite a bit of work needed on the prose
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    More citations to reliable sources are needed. Some original research, or at least the appearance of it.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Some unnecessary detail in the name section. How broad the article is has not been assessed.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    There don't appear to be any problems with stability of content disputes
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Many good images used; I can't see any problems with licensing. Some attention could be given to image placement as they seem a bit crammed in in places, and text is sandwiched between some images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I can see that a lot of work has been done on this article by a few different editors, but unfortunately it's not at GA standard yet. There are quite a lot of uncited portions and some parts border on original research. I see that work has been done to translate from the French article. I'm not sure if it's that, or the number of different editors working on this over time, but the whole article could use a thorough copyedit from an uninvolved editor to bring the prose together. Some specific examples of issues:

  • The lead should be a bit better developed for an article of this size, to conform with WP:LEAD
  • "Origin of the name" section - this section needs better referencing; it is by no means supported by the citations that are present )one of which is a dead link).
  • The section also goes off on a tangent about unrelated Sicilian familes and Lord Nelson.
  • The sections on Patrick and Maria Branwell need more references. eg.
    • "Patrick Brontë (17 March 1777 – 7 June 1861), was born in County Down, Ireland, of a very poor family of farm workers" - needs citation
    • "Open, intelligent, generous, and personally taking care of their education..." - this sentence needs citation
    • "Maria died at the age of 38, probably from cancer of the stomach." - needs citation
    • "She left memories with her husband and with Charlotte...." - this sentence needs citation
  • "The Children" section: "It is possible that the character of Helen Burns..." - this sounds like original research and needs attribution & citation
  • In the "Education" section, it says "the pathetic figure of Maria is represented by the character of the young Helen Burns" - this is now much more certain than the previous "possibility" - the info is repeated, yet inconsistent, and still uncited
  • "Charlotte taught, without being particularly kind to the students she described in her notes, as she would later do in Brussels with even more sarcasm." - this is awkward
  • "Charlotte avoided boredom by following the development of Angria which she received in letters from her brother." - this sentence seems to assume that the reader already knows what Angria is, but it is the first mention of it in this article.
  • "Literary and artistic influence" section - citation?
  • "Far from suffering from the negative influences that never left them and which were reflected in the works of their later, more mature years, the Brontë children absorbed them with open arms." - a little awkward
  • "The Leeds Intelligencer, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, conservative and well written...." - this is another sentence that is somewhat difficult to parse at first
  • "Branwell and Charlotte thus pushed Zamorna, one of the heroes of the Verdopolis, towards an increasingly ambiguous behaviour,[37] and the same influence and evolution recur with Emily Brontë, especially in the characters of Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, and Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre, who display the traits of a Byronic hero." - slightlu unwieldy sentence; is it implying that Mr. Rochester is Emily's character?
  • "Numerous other works have left their mark on the Brontës; namely the Thousand and One Nights for example, which inspired Jinn in which they became themselves in the centre of their kingdoms, while adding a touch of exoticism." - I'm not really sure what this sentence means
  • "During a visit in 1996, the information boards at the entrance claimed over two million visitors, doubtlessly exaggerated." - this appears to be original research

I could go on, but basically, I think the whoe thing needs a thorough copyedit, more references need to be added and the structure may need some work. To be honest, I don't have any bright ideas regarding the structure, but it does seem to go back and forth a bit. For example, the lives of individual children are discussed near the beginning, and then again later. I thought Branwell had been written off in two sentences, only to find a better developed section on him later.

Unfortunately there is just too much work to be done to list the article as a good article at this time.--BelovedFreak 22:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly not surprised at this verdict. The French original was extremely verbose, convoluted, and cyclic. Reading it would have been a challenge for an average educated French native speaker. This English version - which I translated - is far from perfect of course, and after dozens of hours spent working on it offline and in my user space, I finally moved it to article space in the hope that other editors knowledgeable about the Bronte history would be able to improve it, find some English sources, and copyedit it it. There have been quite a few minor edits done since, but nothing that makes it approach anywhere near GA quality, and I personally would never have considered nominating it. Nevertheless, it's a vast improvement on the short en.Wiki stub that it replaced. Thank you for the time you have consumed in reviewing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly see that a lot of work has been put into it at some stage, and this was clearly a good-faith nomination by someone who thought it was ready. I think it just needs some focus on making it more cohesive, as well as attention to detail. --BelovedFreak 16:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Cambridge[edit]

Can I suggest replacing the picture of King's College, Cambridge next to the section on Patrick Bronte with a picture of John's, that being the college he actually attended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkbeast (talkcontribs) 15:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protect?[edit]

I request that this article be semi-protected due to the recent multiple attempts of vandalism from unregistered users. It is also a feasible method to curb vandalism on this page as more than one ip address has been detected to have been vandalising. Orangewarning (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have semi-protected for now. Keith D (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Un-neutral headers[edit]

Some of the headers here aren't neutral and are not encyclopedia languages, but rather languages from books' reviews.

For example:

5.2.1 1847, a bountiful year 5.2.2 Jane Eyre and the end of anonymity 5.2.3 The powerful winds of Wuthering Heights 5.2.4 1848, Anne's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall — one of the first sustained feminist novels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.0.39 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree. Anyone else? Pinkbeast (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that they came from the French wiki as most of the article was translated from there and it is one of their featured articles! Keith D (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever they came from, surely this sort of flowery language is inappropriate? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It came from the French (which as previously mentioned is a FA on fr.Wiki). As a bilingual, I undertook (on request) to translate it. Flowery language is a feature of French and that is how I translated it. Pinkbeast is heartily welcome to recast anything s/he feels is inappropriate for English encyclopedic style. Maybe in the not too distant future we can make another attempt for GA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait[edit]

The brightly coloured image that was at the head of this page looked as if it had an automatic digital colour enhancement done on it. This almost never works on paintings. In this case the image,which is very muted, was made very brightly coloured.

The other adjustment that has been made is the digital blocking out of two fold marks which caused serious paint loss. While the restoration of the damage might be deemed acceptable, changing the colouration of the picture to that extent is not. Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "Brontë" again[edit]

I've found a source for the pronunciation of the surname Brontë, from Merriam Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature. To quote from the Explanatory Notes:

"When our research shows that an author's pronunciation of his or her name differs from common usage, the author's pronunciation is listed first, and the descriptor commonly precedes the more familiar pronunciation."

The book then goes on to list BronTEE as the author's pronunciation, but commonly pronounced by others as BronTAY.

This source is available on Google Books, so anyone can check it online. DORC (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronte Family[edit]

On seeing a TV Program on the Bronte Family. I have some points of view:

The brother I believe, painted himself as a spirit image and seeing himself being detached from his sisters. In researching death patterns for another of years. The Bronte Sisters indicated two of the girls left life of their own choosing. Charlotte's pattern indicates her death was a spontaneous self choice, brought on by her illness knowing there was no cure. Emily's pattern though is indicative of people who die from an incurable illness and reflects deaths in hospitals if not at home. Anne with her illness decided that a direct suicide was her way to leave. Their brother, Patrick. Was taken out of life having completed the task of his birth.

It is also my belief he was the father of the girls in their past life and caused their deaths, including his own. With unfinished task of that time, there re-enterd physical life in the 19th Century to complete the remain life task. They I feel, were very much aware of why they were here and who they were. With their brother seeing himself as an energy to assits his sisters retain their ageing and rolls. felt a detachment with them. Hence, the so called, painted him self out of the painting. To me that means he was there, but not as a part of their life.

Charlotte, was a non-return spirit. Emily and Anne were died about five moths from their birthdays.Brownbearwolf (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne du Maurier[edit]

There appears to be some confusion in the article over the Daphne du Maurier book.

The bibliography entry in question is -

  • du Maurier, Daphne (1987) [1960]. The Infernal World of Branwell Brontë. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-003401-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

This gives a year of 1987 but the ISBN specified points to a 1972 date. There are a few short references to this entry but there are also a couple of entries in the references that point to 1986 and the body of the article also mentions 1986.

What date should be used and to which edition do the pages quoted refer to? Keith D (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

I can understand if the author's pronunciation of his or her name differs from the standard pronuciation say Paul Giamatti pronounces his last name "Jee-ah-maw-tee while in Italy it would be pronunced " Juh-maw-tee" you would note the Italian pronunciation and his preferred pronunciation. But I don't see the purpose of noting people's mispronunciation of a name, such as in the case of the Brontës where it isn't "their" pronunciation, it's the correct pronunciation. See the "e"? It looks like this:ë The reason for the two dots is to show that the e should be pronounced like in the name Chloë. It would be pronunced "Klowee" not "Klow." Why enshrine a mispronunciation? Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to provide facts, not "common" mistakes? NapoleonX (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on my talk page, we report facts; we aren't in the business of divining "truth," especially as it concerns pronunciation—something in which there are no absolutes. Human languages evolve over time; in Shakespeare's day, our English would have been seen as incorrect.
Our sources say that /ˈbrɒnt/, not /ˈbrɒnti/, is the more common pronunciation; in my own experience, that's also how most people pronounce it. The article does justice to this fact by first reporting Miss Charlotte Brontë's preferred pronunciation and following up with the common pronunciation qualified as such.
By the way, the "two dots" are called a diaeresis. Rebbing 00:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we are retaining this on this page then we should also restore it to all of the family member articles that it was removed from. Keith D (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restored at Anne Brontë, Branwell Brontë, Maria Brontë, and Emily Brontë. Rebbing 01:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not talking about the evolution of language such as in your example of Shakespeare's English vs. Modern English, I'm talking about pronunciation. Pronunciation may differ by region, but there is a correct way to pronounce a name. People may mispronounce it, but there is a correct way. You wouldn't pronounce Jose "Joe-see", it's pronounced "Hoe-zay." You know the term for the dots (thanks for the info btw). Well aren't the diaeresis there for a purpose? To show that the "e" should be pronounced, such as in my example of Chloë. According to Wikipedia, diaresis have a purpose. Here's a link to the WP page on the purpose of the diaresis over the "e", using the Brontë family as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8B#English Maybe people would learn to correctly pronounce their favorite authors if it was noted what the correct pronunciation was. Just because most people make a mistake doesn't make the mistake correct. Most Americans probably pronounce Albert Camus as "Albert Ca-muss." But that is not how his name is correctly pronounced. I learned by reading about it that the correct way to pronounce French author Albert Camus' name is "Al-bear Ca-moo." NapoleonX (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not: Camus is pronounced "ca-mü".Wouldn't it be better to use the international phonetic symbols?--Robert Ferrieux (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point entirely: correct pronunciation is defined by the consensus of English speakers. A Received Pronunciation speaker might say that an American grossly mispronounces the English language and could even point to a RP dictionary for support. But would she be correct? Well, no. The same is true here. Logically, perhaps "Brontë" should be pronounced /ˈbrɒnti/, but "says" should also be pronounced /sz/, not /sɛz/, yet which is "correct"? If you were talking about Vladimir Putin with another English speaker, would you follow the Russian pronunciation of his name, down to the backwards-sounding syllable stresses, rolled "r"s, and palatalized consonants? If you did, you would likely come across as laughably pretentious.
Anyway, none of that matters. We report what reliable sources say without overlaying our views, regardless of how reasonable those views may be. Therefore, because the cited dictionary (and other dictionaries) report both pronunciations, so must we; and we do justice to your "true' pronunciation by giving it first, and without any qualifier like "common." Rebbing 21:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This article is partly translated from an earlier version of its French counterpart. Unfortumately, the relevant sources have been left out. No wonder it may appear as a personal interpretation. The French article is not: every statement is backed by a reliable source. Robert Ferrieux (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of its translation nearly 8 years ago, the French version was a mess. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum visitor numbers[edit]

The citations in the article states that the museum is the second most visited literary site in the world - but the visitor numbers for 2017 were around 88,000 (Bronte museum visitor numbers on the rise again, Keighley News, 4 May 2018), but this is far less than some others in the UK - Burn's Birthplace Museum, 164,000 (2017 Visitor Figures, Association of Leading Visitor Attractions) - and Hill Top, the home of Beatrix potter, 119,000 (Visitor attraction numbers cumbriatourism.org) - even if it was the second most visited at one time the citations seem outdated as other sites now have many more visitors, because of this I have changed this statement to remove puffery and give a more precise number. EdwardUK (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary power[edit]

Is it "elementary power" or elemental that is meant here? Rwood128 (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary is ambiguous. Rwood128 (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name 1830–1852[edit]

Why is there the date "1830–1852" in the section title "Origin of the name 1830–1852" ?

2001:171B:2274:7C21:4DB1:59B1:E6FC:7A9 (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear text[edit]

Hi, this is the introductory section on "Literary and artistic influence": "These fictional worlds were the product of fertile imagination fed by reading, discussion, and a passion for literature. Far from suffering from the negative influences that never left them and which were reflected in the works of their later, more mature years, the Brontë children absorbed them with open arms." What are these negative influences? Reading, discussion, and a passion for literature? I struggle to find any actual information in the second sentence. Can it be clarified? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of novels[edit]

This article used to have a list of all their novels and who wrote them. Is there a particular reason it has been removed? It's a bit of an ordeal searching through this article to see who wrote what. I'd like to bring the list back. Richard75 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard75: Have you got a pointer to the version that had such a list? Keith D (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith D: I can't find it and now I'm wondering if I saw it somewhere else. It would still be convenient to have all the titles in one place for easy reference though. Richard75 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Héger or Heger?[edit]

There is currently a discussion on this subject at Talk:Constantin Héger to which you might wish to contribute. Masato.harada (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]