Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people

Many male 'Bloomsbury Group' members were former Cambridge Apostles members

2.27.113.103 (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Something similar could be done to indicate Memoir Club members --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The list of 'Bloomsbury Group' members does not bring out that it started with the Inner Group of Cambridge Apostles; 'Bloomsbury Group' movement has its roots in CAMBRIDGE, not London! 2.24.4.49 (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Omega Workshop is another root, can be indicated too (Duncan Grant came in that way if I remember well, also Vanessa Bell can be linked to Omega I think)
• Quentin Julian Bell, although later a Cambridge Apostle, has no part in this Cambridge-based "roots". If I remember well only Keynes (and his wife Lopokova) lived for a longer period in Cambridge, after the student year roots epoch. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Also, many Cambridge Apostles of the Bloomsbury Group root years, didn't become members of the Group, although close in friendship etc..., e.g. Brooke, Birrell, Russell, Moore - it should not be presented as if the Cambridge Apostles of the turn of the century somehow "transformed" into the core of the Bloomsbury Group, which is not what happened. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Francis, there is a very close connection between the Cambridge Apostles and the Bloomsbury Group; I will consult Frances Spalding on this point when I have read her book next week. One academic source states that the 'Inner Circle' of the Bloomsbury Group: Strachey, L.; Woolf; MacCarthy; Fry; Sheppard; Keynes; Norton and Strachey, J. developed into the Bloomsbury Group. From what I have already read, there IS a very close connection. 2.27.146.76 (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Stephen family (Virginia, Vanessa, Thoby, Adrian — none of them Cambridge Apostles), with their Thursdays and Fridays in Bloomsbury were as instrumental in getting the group started. Part of this period of genesis of the group L. Woolf was abroad if I remember well - so: Cambridge Apostles is only a part of the genesis history, and as said, didn't include some of the most prominent group members (none of the women for starters). That's what I remember from Spalding & others... --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say Francis that there is a clear and undeniable link between the Cambridge Apostles and the Bloomsbury Group : Virginia was married to a Cambridge Apostle; Vanessa was married to a Cambridge Apostle; both Sir James Fitzjames Stephen and James Kenneth Stephen (related?) were Apostles; to quote the following:

"In fact, the true centre of the group was Cambridge University, where their brother Thoby (Stephen) had met a number of intellectuals who had come under the influence of G.M. Moore, whose Principia Ethica (1903) had made a serious impression on undergraduates who formed a group called the ‘Cambridge Apostles'. He propounded a notion of ethics which rested on the pursuit of friendship, happiness, and the cultivation of the intellect.".."The group had ten core members: +Clive Bell, art critic ; Vanessa Bell, Post-impressionist painter ; +E.M. Forster, fiction writer ; +Roger Fry, art critic and Post-impressionist painter ; Duncan Grant, Post-impressionist painter ; +John Maynard Keynes, economist ; +Desmond MacCarthy, literary journalist; +Lytton Strachey, biographer ; +Leonard Woolf, essayist and non-fiction writer ; Virginia Woolf, fiction writer and essayist." + Cambridge Apostles (6) out of 10 leading. 2.27.112.141 (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Vanessa Stephen married Clive Bell - not a Cambridge Apostle afaik (it is their son, Quentin Julian, who is listed as a Cambridge Apostle, which can not have been until several years after the first World War, when Bloomsbury Group members had in fact already moved out of the Bloomsbury area for a large part).
• Thoby Stephen, who had died before the Bloomsbury Group really existed, was not a Cambridge Apostle. His thursdays (in London, after the Cambridge student years of the later Bloomsbury Group members) were as influential in the formation of the Bloomsbury Group, several years before it existed, and included most of the non-Cambridge Apostles that would become members of the Group later on (including the women).
• G. M. Moore, although influential for the shared values of the group, was never a Bloomsbury Group member
• I don't know who wrote what you quote above, but apparently the Cambridge Apostles existed since 1820, it is not as if the Cambridge Apostles was a group "formed" at the time the later Bloombury Group members studied at Cambridge.

So no, for this list article, Cambridge Apostles has more than enough weight currently. FYI, I never denied there "is a clear and undeniable link between the Cambridge Apostles and the Bloomsbury Group". I say it's only one of the meeting places that got the Group off the ground, the others being: Thoby's Thursdays, Vanessa's Fridays, later, Omega Workshop, and when the group already existed, the Memoir Club was slightly more official than the Bloomsbury Group itself and included most of its members (at least those oriented at literature). Again, this is a list article that doesn't need all that detailed information: Bloomsbury Group is probably the article you're looking for, which contains all of that information. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Francis, assuming one accepts the concept of ten 'leading members', the mere fact that 60% of them were Cambridge Apostles is enough proof for me: in fact if you discount both Vanessa and Virginia (!), six out of eight were Cambridge Apostles, or 75%!

Core Members

The group had ten core members, of whom six were former Cambridge Apostles.:[3]

• Clive Bell, art critic; his son Julian Bell was a Cambridge Apostle.
• E.M. Forster, fiction writer (Cambridge Apostle)
• Roger Fry, art critic and Post-impressionist painter (Cambridge Apostle)
• Duncan Grant, Post-impressionist painter, who later became a member of the Camden Town Group
• John Maynard Keynes, economist (Cambridge Apostle)
• Desmond MacCarthy, literary journalist (Cambridge Apostle)
• Lytton Strachey, biographer (Cambridge Apostle)
• Leonard Woolf, essayist and non-fiction writer (Cambridge Apostle)

• Vanessa Bell, Post-impressionist painter
• Virginia Woolf, fiction writer and essayist

2.27.132.160 (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure what you're trying to say here... I mean... what would you change to the list?

• "In fact, the true centre of the group was Cambridge University..." is nonsensical... when the group started none (or virtually none) of the later Bloomsbury Group members actually lived in Cambridge.
• The Stephens, most of all Thoby, Virginia and Vanessa, none of them Cambridge apostles, were quintessential for the group coming into existence. Without them there wouldn't have been a Bloomsbury Group (even when Thoby died before the group really existed). Also counting "only the men" is nonsensical. Bloomsbury Group was not a group centered around men with women in a secondary role. For all I know, Virginia Woolf was one of its best known members, not only for having the most studies of Bloombury Group members devoted to her, but also at the time quite central for keeping the group together (see her letters etc...)
• Re. "...ten 'leading members' (for which no source is quoted)..." — a source is quoted, p. 33 of Todd Avery. Radio Modernism: Literature, Ethics, and the BBC, 1922-1938. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.; 1 January 2006. ISBN 978-0-7546-5517-6. (see footnotes references, currently number ^[3], and references Biliography section - the source can be consulted on-line by clicking the external link). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Some corrections regarding number ^[3] reference, for clarity. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Group membership is more a matter of opinion, than fact!

Thanks for the above; I am currently consulting two Bloomsbury Group experts: watch this space!

Martin 2.30.190.22 (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ten 'leading members'

Francis, I have to say that I am not convinced: "p. 33 of Todd Avery. Radio Modernism: Literature, Ethics, and the BBC, 1922-1938. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.; 1 January 2006. ISBN 978-0-7546-5517-6. (see footnotes, currently nr ^[3], and references)" but I am convinced that 6 out of 10 of them were Cambridge Apostles!

I can quote you another source which currently says Gwen Raverat was a 'bona fide Bloombury-ite', when she was not as such!

Martin 195.194.238.103 (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Gwen Raverat is currently mentioned in List of Bloomsbury Group people#Others. It would be excellent to have a reference for that list entry. Just quote the source. See Wikipedia:references#How to place an inline citation using ref tags for how to add a reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

JULIAN BELL

Detailed overview of the better and lesser known members of the Bloomsbury Group

JULIAN BELL was a Cambridge Apostle, but he is not shown as one in the above graphic! Martin.

2.27.132.8 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not the only issue regarding that graphic.

Issues regarding that graphic can be raised at File talk:Bloomsbury.gif. Or contact those who already edited it (see list at File:Bloomsbury.gif)

However, don't forget that Julian Bell only became a Cambridge Apostle much later than the pre-Bloomsbury Group epoch. His story is completely different from that of the "founding" members of the Bloomsbury Group who had been Cambridge Apostles around the turn of the Century, before the Bloomsbury Group existed. "former Cambridge Apostle" would be incorrect for Julian Bell. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

HOT Bloomsbury News

"According to Leonard Woolf himself, these were the ORIGINAL 13 members: The 3 Stephen's--Vanessa, Virginia & Adrian, Leonard Woolf, Clive Bell, Lytton Strachey, Maynard Keynes, Duncan Grant, Roger Fry, E.M. Forster, Desmond MacCarthy* & Saxon Sydney Turner. Everyone seems to dismiss the last two. [*and Mollie MacCarthy]. The younger Rupert Brooke was Virginia's friend. He was NOT a member, nor friends with the others & in fact, impetuous & quite against the values of the Bloomsbury group. There were other satellite people, such as Ottoline Morrell & Carrington, but only the 13 above were true Old Bloomsburys." Received from San Francisco! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.132.8 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• "San Francisco" is not a source. This is the source given in the list article for the 14 (including Molly MacCarthy) that were in "Old Bloomsbury" group according to L. Woolf: Hermione Lee, Virginia Woolf London: Chatto & Windus, 1996, p. 263 (footnote 4 in List of Bloomsbury Group people#Included according to Leonard Woolf). All covered in the list as it is. Apparently, according to that source, Adrian's wife Karin was also included (according to L. Woolf).
• Rupert Brooke is mentioned in the section "Generally not seen as members of the Bloomsbury Group", so also there, all covered as is.
• Please give references in a workable format (at least name of the publication, and as available: author, publisher, date of publication, etc...). See Wikipedia:Verifiability for one of Wikipedia's core policies on inclusion of material in encyclopedia articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

DON'T 'under-estimate' the major involvement of Cambridge Apostles in Bloomsbury group Francis! ALL will be revealed on exactly which book (2005) the 'San Franciscan' is quoting from. 2.30.187.133 (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, but until it does, and the reference is given, there's no reason to blow this out of proportion in the list article either.

FYI, Rupert Brooke was a Cambridge Apostle (around the time when some of the early members of the Bloomsbury Group were, see what I wrote above), but he was no member of the Bloomsbury Group (see what you wrote above), so: keep that perspective also: turn of the century Cambridge Apostles did not turn into the Bloomsbury Group a few years later (as I wrote above), Cambridge Apostles was one of the venues where some of them got to know each other and where they got a part of their ideas, but it was not the only one.

So, no reason to skew this list article in that direction, as if Cambridge Apostles had more significance than say Thoby's Thursdays etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

While waiting for the San Fransiscan source to materialize, you might benefit from reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. E.g., even if one source puts all the weight for the genesis of the Bloomsbury Group with the Cambridge Apostles, most sources (at least the ones I know of) don't. So there's no way that idea is going to determine the content of this list.

E.g. you started edit-warring on getting "...; his son Julian Bell was a Cambridge Apostle." in the list article. Which is irrelevant, by the time Julian Bell became a Cambridge Apostle that had little or nothing to do with the Bloomsbury Group.

Also, "Six out of eight male so-called 'leading members' were Cambridge Apostles members." is imho too much bloat for the lede, and probably not entirely correct (you'd need a source using "leading members" for that — the sources use either "core members" or "Old Bloomsbury" — I've never seen any of them use the term "leading" members in connection with any of the people in the Bloomsbury Group). Also, as said, "male" gives a wrong impression, as if the women would have been of less importance.

This is not about whether that is a fact or not (I don't dispute it is a fact). I'm speaking about Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (see link above), i.e. to present facts without skewing them in one or the other direction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

On second thought...

On second thought, I suppose it best to remove all reference to "antecedent history" (like Cambridge Apostles) from this list. A list is hardly a place to explain all that, and it is explained satisfactorily in the Bloomsbury Group article.

I mean, what's going to be next... that we indicate who were the neo-pagans? There are at least three of them on the list page. Influences to the core members of the Bloomsbury Group can be referenced, etc. Again, this is not a list combining with all sorts of antecedents: that can be explained in the related article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bloomsbury Group

Francis, I am reading the 2013 edition of the above book, written by my friend Frances Spalding; one I have re-read it, I am going back to work on the Structure of my own book proposal! Martin.

2.30.208.71 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Re. "2013 edition of the above book" — which book? Afaics you didn't name a book yet. Frances Spalding has a separate wikipedia article, with a bibliography section listing books published by her (I have a few of them): could you please indicate which book you mean?

But per what I wrote in the previous section #On second thought... I'll remove the Cambridge Apostles data from the Bloomsbury Group people's list now. Relevant sources can be presented on this talk page or at Talk:Bloomsbury Group (or: suitably formatted directly in the relevant articles) when updates to any of these articles seem justified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, apparently no sources can be cited for the excessive weight given to Cambridge Apostles antecedents. FYI, friendship with Frances Spalding is not a source in Wikipedia context. Reading her books (as I have done), and quoting from them appropriately is.

@Martin, did you come around to have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability (as I suggested above), the page that explains this? What did you think about that guidance? Same questions regarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (which, for example, has "Avoid stating opinions as facts" — the dominant relevance of Cambridge Apostles to the Bloomsbury Group is an opinion, one without properly cited references currently, it shouldn't be stated as a fact)?

So, I'm adamant, all this unreferenced material goes out of this list article, until such time that proper references can be given. Which wouldn't be Spalding I suppose, unless you can quote which book on what page supports this (note that I've read quite some of her books and have them in my library, along with other Bloomsbury Group-related literature and scholarship). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Francis, while I don't really want to cause you offence as after all, you are BELGIAN which is a heavier enough 'burden' (French or Flemish?) but you are totally and utterly WRONG; this article was - much like the Cambridge Apostles poor to begin with, and I have improved it, as I did the Cambridge Apostles hindered by a DUTCHMAN, living in Eire of all places. While I do not take Wikipedia that seriously - I perceive it as a 'lunatic asylum' for obsessives, it does have its uses, and I do prefer it to Oxford University's Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a.k.a. ODNB, of which I have a rather low opinion, in common with many others. 2.27.113.156 (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, don't take this personal, I can assure you I don't.

Anyhow, no references, as in no references at all are offered. Again I invite you to visit Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as for the basics of what goes in Wikipedia articles and what doesn't.

When disagreeing on content with another editor, here's another one to familiarise yourself with: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, e.g., quoting form that policy, "comment on content, not the contributor". --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth are mentioning me here, mr. IP? Are you so out of arguments that you only can come up with personal attacks? That is rather pitiful. The Banner talk 18:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Banner,

@IP-editor "Martin",

Starting dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people#The Bloomsbury Group --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

MY LAST WORD

http://www.opencambridge.cam.ac.uk/events/bloomsbury-group-cambridge

2.30.189.181 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Insufficient. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

ALL of the references to 'Cambridge Apostles' are referenced in their individual WIKI articles [...]!

2.30.195.243 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Martin, please edit with your existing user account instead of IP-editing.

No ad hominems please, e.g. don't put user names in section titles or edit summaries.

Re. "ALL of the references to 'Cambridge Apostles' are referenced in their individual WIKI articles" - irrelevant, content must be verifiable in the article where it is presented. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Further, incorrect: e.g. you have reverted in "[Lady Ottoline Morrell]'s extravagant parties no longer brought the group together..." four times now in a little bit over a 24H period. There's no reference for that in any article, also not in this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic List of Bloomsbury Group people. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
I'm taking the somewhat unusual tack of posting this here because the IP editor's address apparently changes daily. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

"wikipedia isn't perfect, but its model is sound"

Can I suggest that you two guys read Professor John Naughton's excellent article in "THE OBSERVER" of 10.08.14? If it helps you understand it, I can get it translated into Belgian (French or Walloon?) and into Dutch? I use both Wikipedia and ODNB and both's editors are equally 'intransigent': "unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something. synonyms: uncompromising, inflexible, unbending, unyielding, diehard, unshakable, unwavering, resolute, rigid, unaccommodating, uncooperative, stubborn, obstinate, obdurate, pigheaded, single-minded, iron-willed, stiff-necked"; intransigeant; onverzettelijk: in French/Dutch?

I CAN DEBATE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF WIKIPEDIA UNTIL (AS WE SAY IN COLLOQUIAL ENGLISH) "THE COWS COME HOME", BUT THERE IS NO COMPLETE AGREEMENT ANYWHERE IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD AS TO WHO EXACTLY CONSTITUTED THE BLOOMSBURY GROUP, SO ALL THE MEMBERS ARE A MATTER OF OPINION AND NOT FACT GUYS.

WHAT IS CERTAIN IS THAT A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF MALE MEMBERS WERE CAMBRIDGE APOSTLES.

Understand the above points and we may have the basis for further discussion? Otherwise....2.27.131.74 (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

semi-protect?

In order to concentrate the discussion on the content, and avoid slurs in edit summaries and the like, wouldn't it be a good idea to proceed as follows:

• replace the current {{multiple issues}} template by an {{underdiscussion}} template pointing to a relevant section on this talk page;
• semi-protect the article until the discussions are resolved...

? Tx for sharing your thoughts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I think we have to go to WP:AN/I to get this solved once and for all. The Banner talk 09:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive460#User:Nitramrekcap_disrupting_Rosalind_Franklin
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive462#User:Wobble.2FAlun_and_User:Nitramrekcap

Any chance ANI would lead to a "once and for all" solution this time?

For the time being, I'd like to concentrate on the "resolve content dispute" approach before going flat-out on behavioural issues (which is a real issue but may wither when Martin feels confident that views on content is the issue we're all intent on resolving). Also, as long as the current DRN initiative isn't concluded with a recommendation to take it to another level of problem solving, taking this to ANI would be open to WP:FORUMSHOP disapproval.

I hope Martin appreciates he is reached a hand to come to an amicable solution here, which can lead to him becoming a constructive editor again in this collaborative environment. Even if that asks some effort from other editors to temporarily put aside the disruption he caused for proving his point (stopping disruption is however a condition for the kind of environment that is needed to have fruitful content discussions). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, you blocked the road to AN/I by starting the, in my opinion, useless Dispute Resolving-process. "Martin" never communicated in a useful way, so expecting him to show up at DR is close to dreaming. Expecting a solution a fairytale. What you need is an axe. The Banner talk 11:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"wikipedia isn't perfect, but its model is sound"

Can I suggest that you two guys read Professor John Naughton's excellent article in "THE OBSERVER" of 10.08.14? If it helps you understand it, I can get it translated into Belgian (French or Walloon?) and into Dutch? I use both Wikipedia and ODNB, both's editors are equally intransigent: "unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something. synonyms: uncompromising, inflexible, unbending, unyielding, diehard, unshakable, unwavering, resolute, rigid, unaccommodating, uncooperative, stubborn, obstinate, obdurate, pigheaded, single-minded, iron-willed, stiff-necked"; intransigeant; onverzettelijk: in French/Dutch?

I CAN DEBATE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF WIKIPEDIA UNTIL (AS WE SAY IN COLLOQUIAL ENGLISH) "THE COWS COME HOME", BUT THERE IS NO COMPLETE AGREEMENT ANYWHERE IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD AS TO WHO EXACTLY CONSTITUTED THE BLOOMSBURY GROUP, SO ALL THE MEMBERS ARE A MATTER OF OPINION AND NOT FACT GUYS.

WHAT IS CERTAIN IS THAT A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF MALE MEMBERS WERE CAMBRIDGE APOSTLES.

Understand the above points and we may have the basis for further discussion? Otherwise....2.27.131.74 (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We could also debate about your shortcomings... The Banner talk 20:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF JIMMY WALES (CO-FOUNDER) IN THE CONTEXT OF PROFESSOR JOHN NAUGHTON'S ARTICLE IN "THE OBSERVER" AND IS COPIED TO PROFESSOR JOHN NAUGHTON.

2.27.131.74 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So what? Do you think your shouting is impressing us? The Banner talk 20:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert Gathorne-Hardy

I met him once, around 1967. A mutual friend, who knew him well and who introduced us, told me that RG-H had been a fringe member of the Bloomsbury Group. I have nothing resembling a WP:RS for this assertion, but it might be worth bearing in mind. Narky Blert (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Saxon Sydney-Turner

Have added B/D dates to his article and also comments from his Times Obituary by L. W. who I presume is Leonard Woolf? Hugo999 (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)