Talk:Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

8th Grade
I'm afraid to say that the whole of this article, commentary, and subsequent additions, including most of those on this discussion page are of a level suitable to an 8th grade student. This is not uncommon within Wikipedia. There are plenty of thoughtful and knowledgeable books, guides and cribs to Albee's play, to which it would be better to refer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * This is an old comment, but in the future it's good to show eamples and sources. Also the comment may have been made a long time ago when Wikipedia was less developed. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Dec 2006 and before commentary
This article deserves to be re-written; much of it appears to have been written by a person or persons who have only seen the movie once, and have not read the play. There is a serious lack of understanding contained in the article regarding the origin and meaning of the title and its reference to Virginia Woolf. It also contained factual errors regarding the text of the original play. There is very little discussion of the underlying dynamics of the play, mainly the issue of whether or not Martha and George actually had a son. Anyone who has seriously reviewed the play should realize that Martha and George "created" a fictional son. It would also be useful to analyze the effect this game had on their relationship. Additionally, there ought to be a discussion of why Martha, at the end of the play (upon being asked by her husband "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?") replies "I am, George." User:jlmurrel December 17, 2006

Note to WikiProject Broadway participants: Article needs information about the current Broadway production, and previous broadway productions. EvilPhoenix July 2, 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Wasn't this a book before it became a movie? -- April

Well it was a play by Edward Albee. Thanks, I forget things like that.

Should the film and play sections be separated into two different entries? -Markt3, 8/11/05
 * If the film section expands significantly, perhaps, but there's not really enough info to warrant a split right now. Dysprosia 09:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Plot summary" section
The Plot Summary section is just awful. It's meandering and unclear, and reads like someone who's mumbling to himself or herself. Can we do something about it? Moncrief 02:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Like what? Could you perhaps be more descriptive? Dysprosia 04:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Though the incorporation of important, respective lines is nice, I agree that the summary is unclear. Perhaps a more concise summary with emphasis on the crucial actions; then sections on themes, symbolism, brief character analysis, etc. -- Perrin

tone of Plot Summary
All of the critical analysis needs to be removed as well, per No Original Research. --Rajah (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

About the title
I think a couple of lines on why the play has been named "Who's Afraid of Virginai Woolf?" would be in order and make the description complete. --Gurubrahma 17:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that the phrase "who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?" was written in marker ink on the south west wall of the Figaro Café [corner of Bleeker and MacDougal Streets, NYC long before there was a play]I know because I saw it. I thought this was common knowledge. TRIKER (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally believe that the summary of the three 'games' has been written excellently. He does not speak as if rambling to him/herself but as if talking to someone that has a good understanding of the play or has at least viewed the production. I am studying the play as part of my A Level English Literature course and i must admit i found it extremely beneficial. Thanks

Someone, apparently not getting the joke, took Elizabeth Taylor's performance of Martha to be an unjust savaging of Virginia Woolf.

Internal consistency regarding meaning of the title
This article needs to find some internal consistency regarding the meaning of the title. One paragraph declares that it's a meaningless pun. Then, two paragraphs later, the article contradicts itself and declares that it's not a meaningless pun. The way the author of the second paragraph chose italicize the world "that" even suggests that he or she realized they were contradicting the previous statement in this article.

I've never seen the play and only have seen the movie once, many years ago. So I don't feel at all qualified to offer a determination regarding which interpretation is correct. But the article absolutely should not "argue with itself" like that.

If there is a consensus within the literary community on the point, then that is what this article should reflect. If there is not such a consensus, then both points of view should be reflected in the article, but neither should be stated as if it's an undisputed fact. It should be something more along the lines of "Certain critics say this about the title . . . Others interpret it as that . . ."

As I said, I'm not in any position personally to determine which of those two approaches should be adopted, but it would be nice if someone more familiar with the literary world's critical analyses of this play would make that determination and re-write the article accordingly (preferably providing citations, of course). Mwelch 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oscar Levant, The Unimportance of Being Oscar, Pocket Books 1969 (reprint of G.P. Putnam 1968), p. 6 says that the title originated as graffiti. Which means that Albee himself may not have had one specific meaning in mind. - Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. With that lead from you, I also found an inteview with Albee discussing that graffiti origin of the title.  I'm going to update this article now. Mwelch 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

re: trivia
Is it at all relevant to the universe that some little band made a song that makes passing reference to the title? Do fans of William Blake stalk the biblical section pointing out every last place where he made reference to the topic at hand? Is the page on JFK's assassination filled with a list of every TV show that has an episode whose characters remember the event? Can we get some perspective, here?

2006 edition claims
I have tagged this as original research. Unless somebody comes up with citations backing it up, I will be deleting it next week. Jeffpw 06:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Latin in the play seems to be from a funeral mass but it is not the Deas Irae (at least not as it is transcribed in the wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.59.196 (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder / manic depression
There's a paragraph of the article that goes on and on about bipolar disorder (a.k.a. manic depression), and how the characters of the play seem to exhibit that disorder (in some sort of condensed or atypical form). It explicitly mentions this diagnosis at least five times – so much that I found it becoming annoying. That discussion starts with the bald unsourced assertion that "Both Martha and George exhibit signs of bipolar disorder" – so I checked the references to see how much emphasis the sources actually put on this diagnosis. Guess what? I looked up all four sources mentioned in that part of the article and found that none of the sources that talk about the play mention the bipolar diagnosis, and the one that talks about bipolar disorder doesn't mention the play. I'm afraid we have some sort of WP:Original research injected into the article here. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with BarrelProof. . . although I think the bipolar reference is spot on, the cited sources need to support that analysis. I'm afraid that this section looks like it needs to be deleted entirely or cut down to just a sentence or two. zuky79 (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Seconded, I agree that it's OR and should be deleted entirely. Vonbontee (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, she has Borderline Personality Disorder, not Bipolar Disorder (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/i-hate-you-dont-leave-me/201103/borderlines-i-wish-i-would-have-known)

Act II: In the play, the men never leave the house. It is in the movie that theu are in the yard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.80.99 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Critical Approaches
This section has some passages that smack of original research. Whoever wrote this appears to be writing their interpretation of the play. If the uncited assertions in this section are part of the published literary criticism on Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, then please cite the works, otherwise those opinion sections should be scratched. Some passages are cited, which is good, but others look like opinions of the author of this article. Chafe66 (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed the uncited passages. Nandesuka (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110918131104/http://bluebridgetheatre.ca/plays-schedules/whos-afraid-of-virginia-woolf/ to http://bluebridgetheatre.ca/plays-schedules/whos-afraid-of-virginia-woolf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"Out of print" album is actually on iTunes
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/whos-afraid-virginia-woolf-original-music-from-motion/669030287

Notable productions
The Bentley School production is redolent with notability, and is the only production for which a photo is provided, and it's a brilliant photo. (From what vantage point was it shot?) It is the only production in a theater-in-the-round format. Moreover, this entry is appropriate for its context and is a positive contribution to the article. Please discuss in Talk, and provide evidence that your edit improves the article, instead of spitefully redacting. The standard of merit for notability is low because it's almost purely subjective. Thanks. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally, the only student productions that are notable are those that have notable student actors - and likely not even then. For example, I very much doubt you'll find mentions of any of Benedict Cumberbatch's student roles. I think this production and its photo should be left out. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Film Link
Link to the film at the top of page just loops around back to this article. However, it’s only on mobile. I don’t know how to fix this on mobile since I am not that good at editing. Daankeo (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The link (For the 1966 film adaptation, see Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (film)) links to the article on the film, so it seems to be okay.- Åüñîçńøł (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Right now I’m on iPhone, and the film link goes back to the top of the play article. Sunnystreet (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Excessive detail" and "non-neutrality"?
Hello! To try to put an end to an unfortunate controversy and avoid wasting further time with asking a mediation (third opinion (3O)), I would like to clarify once and for all why my edits are neither "excessive detail" nor do they contain any "not neutral" statements. 1. After the "gun joke" Martha is not frightened (if not just for a moment), but very amused instead. 2. The article didn't explain correctly why George breaks a bottle in a rage. (The scene I referred to in which Martha deeply offends George's pride was missing.) 3. The article didn't explain the friend's accident of George's youth correctly. (A detail particularly important to understand the reference to this fact in the final part of the play). 4. It was not explained why George had furiously thrown the book against the chimes. (The reference to the intimate relationship between Nick and Martha was missing at that point.) 5. It is not true that "Martha and Nick had knocked in some bells", because it was George's book that did it. (An important detail because otherwise the reference, present before my modifications, to the "2005 production" would not be understood). 6. It is not true that "the description [of the car accident that happened to George and Martha's 'imaginary son'] matches that of the boy in the gin mill story". (My edits explain the difference). Since the editing work requires a lot of time and effort, I hope a constructive contribution from everyone, while I do not consider it correct or compliant with the Wikipedia regulation to delete the work of others with a single click. Thanks. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)