Talk:James Joyce/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

To be checked

For reference, the three sources listed in the 2004 featured version were:

  • Ellman, Richard. James Joyce. Oxford University Press, revised edition 1983.
  • Levin, Harry (ed. with introduction and notes). The Essential James Joyce. Cape, 1948. Revised edition Penguin in association with Jonathan Cape, 1963.
  • Read, Forrest. Pound/Joyce: The Letters of Ezra Pound to James Joyce, with Pound's Essays on Joyce. New Directions, 1967.
Could a literary person comment on whether these very old sources should still be listed in "Further reading"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

From pre-revert to 2006 version:

  •  Done Ellman p. 514, quotes differ, should the contempt/contemptuous piece be part of the full quote or not:[1]
Actual wording:

'Why are you so afraid of thunder?' asked [Arthur] Power, 'your children don't mind it.' 'Ah,' said Joyce contemptuously, 'they have no religion.' Joyce's fears were part of his identity, and he had no wish, even if he had had the power, to slough any of them off.

Ellman (1982), p. 514, citing Power, From an Old Waterford House (London, n.d.), p. 67, and 1953 interview with Power. Kablammo (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Old version: After one of his alcoholic binges, he got into a fight over a misunderstanding with a man in St. Stephen's Green.
    • New version: After one of these drinking binges, he got into a fight over a misunderstanding with a man in Phoenix Park; ... Ellman 162
The incident is described on page 161 of Ellman (1982) as occurring in St. Stephen's Green, but does not state he had been drinking. After Joyce's beating he was taken home by a man, rumoured to be Jewish and to have an unfaithful wife. Id., p. 162. Kablammo(talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The text written by Filiocht presumably in the 2004 promoted version said:
  • After staying in Gogarty's Martello Tower for six nights he left following an altercation, got drunk in a whorehouse and got into a fight, from which he was rescued by his father's acquaintance Alfred Hunter, an Irish Jew who thus inspired Leopold Bloom, the hero of Ulysses.
but the citation was added later. The material may have come from Levin or Read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ellman give a different chronology. On 20 June got drunk, and made a scene at a theatre rehearsal; when he was ejected he demanded to be let back into the theatre, and in his loud demands from outside the door called it a "bawdy house". Later on that night, or the following, came the incident at St. Stephen's. If the same night, then Joyce had been drinking before the skirmish (as it happened the same night as the theatre incident); if the following night, there is no support in Ellmann for his drinking. Not until 9 September did Joyce move in with Gogarty, where he stayed for six days. Ellmann does not mention any similar event at Phoenix Park, nor during Joyce's stay in the Martello tower with Gogarty, and Joyce's rescue by Alfred H. Hunter was after the June skirmish in St. Stephen's. Kablammo (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • All of the McCourt sources need to be checked. The References section in the pre-revert version lists:
  • McCourt, John, ed. James Joyce in Context. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge UP, 2009. ISBN 978-0-5218-8662-8.
  • but text was inline cited without page numbers to
  • McCourt, John (2001). The Years of Bloom: James Joyce in Trieste, 1904-1920. The Lilliput Press. ISBN 1901866718. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Yes: who is McCourt? The citation needs to have a full reference, not just a last name. Currently, this citation has no validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by71.204.26.208 (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the last paragraph, on Joyce's literary estate, is needed, and we need to assure that we comply with BLP. Kablammo (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Is Bulson 16 citing only the quote, or the entire paragraph?
  • In Paris, Maria and Eugene Jolas nursed Joyce during his long years of writing Finnegans Wake. Were it not for their unwavering support (along with Harriet Shaw Weaver's constant financial support), there is a good possibility that his books might never have been finished or published. In their now legendary literary magazine "Transition," the Jolases published serially various sections of Joyce's novel under the title Work in Progress. He returned to Zürich in late 1940, fleeing the Nazi occupation of France. On 11 January 1941, he underwent surgery for a perforated ulcer. While at first improved, he relapsed the following day, and despite several transfusions, fell into a coma. He awoke at 2 a.m. on 13 January 1941, and asked for a nurse to call his wife and son before losing consciousness again. They were still on their way, when he died, 15 minutes later. He is buried in the Fluntern Cemetery within earshot of the lions in the Zürich Zoo. Although two senior Irish diplomats were in Switzerland at the time, neither attended Joyce's funeral, and the Irish government subsequently declined Nora's offer to permit the repatriation of Joyce's remains. Nora, whom Joyce had finally married in London in 1931, survived him by 10 years. She is buried now by his side, as is their son George, who died in 1976. Ellmann reports that when the arrangements for Joyce's burial were being made, a Catholic priest tried to convince Nora that there should be a funeral Mass. Ever loyal, she replied, "I couldn't do that to him."[1] Swiss tenor Max Meili sang Addio terra, addio cielo from Monteverdi'sL'Orfeo at the funeral service.
The quote. Ellmann has the majority, but not all, of the other detail. As Ellmann also has the quote, and Bulson appears to give only a short biographical sketch, we may want to just use Ellmann. Kablammo (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Source lost somewhere ... Beebe 1971, p. 176. ... but ... Beebe, Maurice (Fall 1972). "Ulysses and the Age of Modernism". James Joyce Quarterly (University of Tulsa) 10 (1): 172–88
1972 is correct. Same source. (Would fix it myself but for scary templates at top.) Kablammo (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • At some point I will go through all Ellmann cites and check page cites against 1982 hardcover, and mark it done when completed Kablammo (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Images

We have one painting, and five sculptures. Commons has a photograph (in two versions) and a drawing. There should be more balance. Kablammo (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I prefer File:Revolutionary Joyce Better Contrast.jpg (photo) over File:Jamesjoyce tuohy-ohne.jpg (painting) for the lede, but I was reverted two weeks ago when I tried to change it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I do too. This drawing might be good for somewhere in the text. Once the text is in reasonably good shape we can return to the images. Kablammo (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Legacy"

The article, even as it stands after pruning and extensive citation work, does not meet FA standards, particulary in the areas of critical reception and the author's influence. The Legacy section is not comprehensive; in fact it barely scratches the surface (and, despite recent improvements, still has some of the attributes of a coatrack). It may be best to establish a separate sandbox page for this section, and revamp it in a more deliberative fashion than a rush to bring it up to FA standards immediately and thereby avoid an FAR (if that in fact is where this is going). The remaining defects in other sections of the article can be done in the usual fashion, by direct editing. Kablammo (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So far, I haven't been able to entice any other editors to work on the article. SandyGeorgia(Talk) 13:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps because the assumption of such work, by one person, would be a daunting task, even for those who are neither yung nor easily freudened. And those who know the derivation of that last phrase should consider joining in a collaborative effort so that no one is tasked with the majority of the work. Kablammo (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
While we wait for those who are neither yung nor easily freudened to show up, would you have time to fix the "drunken binge" or Bulson 16 parts? I've got other pressing things to catch up on ... at least the article is now in better shape than it was a week ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I will, but if not today it may be next week. Kablammo (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Right now I feel as heavy as yonder stone, but I'll help with critical reception and legacy in the coming weeks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I will establish the sub-page next week. Kablammo (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

George/Giorgio

I've reverted a global change of George -> Giorgio. This, perhaps, needs discussion. The tombstone in the photograph says "George," so at least the photo description should not change. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stanislaus, James' brother, uses "Giorgio" in his single appearance in My Brother's Keeper; so does Ellmann in James Joyce. He is indexed under "Joyce, George (Giorgio) (J's son)" in Ellmann; I have not checked all of the usages in the text, but the first few ones are "Giorgio". Kablammo (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It may well be that George was the given name, and Giorgio was what he was called informally. Kablammo (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
One would need to check his birth certificate for the original given name, but I'm almost sure that his parents called him Giorgio, the family spoke Italian together. --Ktlynch (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

His fellow Irishmen

Of his contemporaries, he looked much like Eamonn De Valera, but at the same time he did not. Anything else to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.45(talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebalance the article

The biographical sections could give a better sense of the man, his personality and (often erratic) working methods, as well as some more of his influences both literary - he was well grounded in both the English and French canon - ontop of the the straight narrative of his travels.

If neccessary, the sections on Ulysses and Finnegans Wake can be shortened to make way for this since they already have good articles of their own.Ktlynch (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I think that old picture at the beggining of article is more known and more representative. (this one is good to) --Vojvodaeplease be free to write :) 14:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also old way of literature organisation was great. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

International figure or English-language figure?

Just wondering is Joyce much known beyond the English-speaking world? I was speaking with a number of Arabic speakers today and they had never heard of him. I'm not a fan of his really, really long sentences but I had thought he was well known beyond the English-speaking world?109.78.46.48 (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Joyce was mostly known for his ability and ways with the English language. His sentence constructions and manipulation of grammatical form. I'm fairly certain that most of his writing would most definitely get lost in translation. I may be wrong, but I doubt that any translations would be very successful. His novels are more about how they tell than the story itself. Canterbury Tail talk 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Other language wikis list articles on Joyce and Ulysses in dozens of languages, which may speak to the interests of Wikipedians, at least. As for his works, even Finnegan's Wake has been translated, into German, French, and other languages. Kablammo (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I cannot comprehend the idea of Finnegans Wake being translated. Zazaban (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Joyce is part of the italian high school program and my high school was named after him i would say that he's known in italy. (please excuse my terrible english). — Preceding unsigned comment added byRambaldo (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

He certainly would be known in countries in Europe outside the United Kingdom - after all, he lived part of his life in France, Switzerland and Italy. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why no infobox?

Why has the article no infobox? {{Infobox writer}} exists.--Oneiros (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it has had one twice in the past, and removed each time. The most recent discussion was last fall. Articles do not require infoboxes, and just because a template is available, does not mean it needs to be used. Kablammo(talk) 22:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no requirement for infoboxes, they duplicate info already in the article, and many editors dislike them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll re inclusion of Infobox

Let's gauge current consensus of who supports or opposes inclusion of an Infobox. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll responses

  • Support - Infoboxes are useful and are encouraged on all biographies. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no requirement for an infobox. When this article had one, there was an obscenely long list of authors influenced by Joyce. Good riddance. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    We can always agree by consensus not to use certain fields, adding a comment to that effect in the template. I don't like that kind of misuse of the influence fields myself. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yworo (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose They tend to trivialize the subject, in my estimation. Oppose this one particularly. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose They are optional and not required...Modernist (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've used them because the template exists and is easy for me to apply, but I don't think they constitute an improvement. Aesthetically I'm struck by the cleanness of a good image, photo or painting, atop an article w/o the border and data. JNW (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the arguments above and below. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Simplistic. Trivilises the subject. Ceoil (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons we've been over. Riggr Mortis (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, WP:DISINFOBOX. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. re WP:DISINFOBOX. Spanglej (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support They're quite useful, especially for setting the context and time for writers and artists. Ktlynch (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per all opposers above. Paul August ☎ 14:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Poll discussion

Wow, look at all the snow. It's like an early Christmas...for Infobox haters. My bad, I didn't realize how much some editors disliked them for certain articles. Please forgive the disruption and return to your regularly scheduled programming. Yworo (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Roman catholic?

He is an agnostic, ¿isn´t he?, ergo he is not a roman catholic writer. Don´t start again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.140.204 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the section "1882–1904: Dublin" which addresses critical and biographical opinion on the subject. Also, because of the undeniable Catholicity of his work, even many who consider him an apostate class him as a "Catholic writer". Mamalujo (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ellmann in his biography (citation needed) emphasises that while he was very obviously and militantly against the Church, probably against God, and a self-described Socialist and Anarchist in certain stages of his life, he not a self-described atheist. As the page already says, when asked when did he leave the Church, he replied that "It is for the Church to say." Also Gogarty referred to him as a "fearful jesuit" which made into the text of Ulysses (spoken by Mulligan in the first chapter afaik). The basis of that claim -- as he explains -- is that Joyce attacked the Church in the same methodological manner which he learned from the monks during his school years, a general attitude that really describes aspects of his work and method, if not his conduct. So the question is becoming more pressing here: what does it mean to be a "catholic writer"? Is it about the identity of the writer or the motives in the work? Is it enough to write a lot about how bad is the Catholic Church to become a Catholic Writer? Maxigas (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that this flags up the great limitations of categorising. It is fairly meaningless, in this context, to label Joyce one way or the other. His views morphed through his life and, from what I understand, his writings are shot through with conflicted feeling about the church - being drawn to it and repelled by it concurrently. There is little point here in knocking about the evidence, seeking to convince others that Joyce was one way or the other, arguing for the "undeniable Catholicity" or agnosticism of his work. Over-enthusiastic slapping on of cats to articles where there is clear ambivalence achieves nothing and, worse, gives a factual misrepresentation, ignoring the subtleties. There is little scholastic in it. I feel strongly that if there is not a very clear case for someone's actual on-going religious practice, as there not with Joyce, then a religious category has no place in the article. This applies, for me, to issues such as someone's sexuality. If in doubt, leave it out. I'd suggest this question is much better discussed in the article itself, transparently, putting the evidence and subtleties on both sides, making no argument. Only those who wish Catholic categories inflated, for example, itch to get their hands people like Joyce. I feel it is somewhat childish to need to box someone neatly and tie a ribbon around their faith for the sake of a specious 'win'. Span (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the categories are intended not for people that are already at the article, but to help people find articles that are related to the topic they are interested in. I believe this IS a useful achievement and the category should be in. If you are interested in catholicism and writers, you would likely be interested in Joyce, come here via Category:Roman Catholic writers, read the article and grasp what subtleties you can here.
Categories by their nature "ignore subtleties," as they are generalizations.
This discussion came up before. I think a good resolution would be to have a more specific definition of the category - and I attempted to start a discussion at Category talk:Roman Catholic writers#Writers "informed by" Roman Catholicism, but got no response. If it is defined as "practicing Catholic writers," then he's out. If it is "Writers influenced by Catholicism," he's in. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Categories says "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category". I think that makes it fairly clear. Joyce's clear Catholicism is neither self-evident nor uncontroversial. In the on-going discussions around other Catholic categories of late, such as Category talk:American Roman Catholics, the distinguishing features used to determine 'Catholicism' are well-sourced clear and public self-identification and on-going religious practice as an adult. This is based on WP:BLPCAT guidelines but holds for deceased biographies also. I would say, yes, continue the discussion about finding a more specific category that more accurately describes Joyce, a description which is non-controversial and self-evident. The problem with "Writers influenced by Catholicism" is as Catholicism was Christianity up until 1520-ish and religion influenced pretty much all writing in Europe, all European writers before that date could be reasonably included in the cat. But I am happy to explore that line of enquiry with you.Span (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I think there is (or should be) a clear distinction between writers who are Catholic and writers who write aboutCatholicism (or any religion). For some reason, categories involving religion seem to attract crusaders who add names to the category with little or no basis. I have been systematically removing such additions to Category:American Roman Catholics. I've removed hundreds of them; I would estimate approximately 60-70% have been added inappropriately. Some of these undoubtedly were added in good faith by editors who didn't realize a person must self-identify with Catholicism as an adult to be included in the category (good faith or not, it still creates a messy category). But many were added with no evidence or even evidence to the contrary. That being said, I do sympathize with the statement above that "categories are intended not for people that are already at the article, but to help people find articles that are related to the topic they are interested in". I don't think a writer who happens to be Catholic but does not write about Catholicism needs to be categorized as a "Roman Catholic writer"; hence, that category should be renamed "Writers about Catholicism" or something similar. Cresix (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry! I did not realize that I had deleted the comment of Mamalujo. It was a mistake by copying and pasting, you know. Anyway I dont understand why you has deleted my contribution. Is this the english wikipedia?--Sürrell (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sürrel, Daedalus969 invited you to "restore their comment later" perhaps not knowing if you had deleted another's entry intentionally. It is easy enough to blank by mistake. I have done it before now. Yes, this is the English Wikipedia. I support Cresix's viewpoints. I hope can go for accuracy and good practice. Span (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving him out if the definition is "self-identifying Catholics who write," but that's a reasonably useless category (IMO). But if that is the definition, why not say so at Category:Roman Catholic writers. If we said there that the category was for "writers with a large Roman Catholic influence" it would be a more (IMO) useful category and I think you would agree that JJ's membership in such a category is self-evident and uncontroversial. I'm not going to campaign that we define the category that way, but it would be good to have the consensus definition of the category stated at the category page. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
What we think as editors and how we would define the category is largely beside the point. What matters is that when critics compile lists of Catholic novelists or discuss Catholic novelists, he is commonly included (see exampleshere and [3]). The reasons why are discussed above. As also mentioned above, categories ignore subtleties. The article can deal with those matters. The category is largely a tool, like an index, for the user of the encyclopedia to locate and research material. The inclusion within the category serves that purpose. Mamalujo (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No, actually, how editors define the category is a major point. Editors as a group determine how categories are defined; they may be influenced by the critics that you mention, but the editors here, not the critics, define the categories. And defining the category as "Writers who happen to be Catholic" will result in a vastly different list than will defining the category as "Writers who write about Catholicism". The critics may be important, but only to the extent that they influence the opinions of editors in this or a similar discussions.Cresix (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the best approach (as noted above) is to remove the "Catholic writers" category and find one more specific that is"self-evident and uncontroversial". Can we move forward with that?Span (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, I strongly disagree. What reliable sources say matters. Policy against original research and synthesis, likewise, still apply. And Joyce is not just a writer who "writes about Catholicism", he is regularly and rightly described, as Leo Knuth put it in the James Joyce Quarterly as a writer who's "mind was saturated with catholica". That is why he is commonly discussed by reliable sources as a Catholic writer. The category would seem apt even if he were a complete apostate. Of course, the degree and nature of his apostacy is an issue of disagreement among biographers and critics. @Span, for those reasons and those mentioned above I would disagree with abandoning the category. The idea that Joyce is, at least in some regard, a Catholic author is supported by reliable sources, self evident and not a controversial categorization. Mamalujo(talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

New Interuption-So what you are saying is that if I ,a dedicated and important Russian communist spend my entire life analysing the Roman Catholic church and criticing and denouncing it in every way possible-having a mind saturated with anti catholic hate-then I am to be classed as a Catholic or Roman Catholic writer? Its rather like suggesting that Himmler was Jew- after all he was obssessed with them !(end of interuption) — Preceding unsigned comment added by80.99.11.150 (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I still think the key is to define the category. The category name is necessarily shorthand for saying something about the subject. A diligent reader would want to know what our definition of it is when they see it to understand what we are saying. I'm sure where Joyce is discussed as a "Roman Catholic writer," the meaning of the phrase is explained in some nuanced detail. Hoping to provoke a discussion, I have already put a proposed definition at Category:Roman Catholic writers - which is where I think this discussion should be taking place. I think we all agree he didn't regularly attend mass, but was at least thoroughly dipped in catholica - if not saturated in it. The question is: do we have consensus to define the category in a way that includes him or not? Such a discussion belongs at Category talk:Roman Catholic writers. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Did more homework: I looked at the super-categories of Category:Roman Catholic writers and found, in Category:Roman Catholics:
Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and who identified themselves as Roman Catholic.
I think Joyce's Catholicism is related to his notability and thus qualifies. What do you think? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
There you go. You have a definition for the category. You'll note that Graham Greene ceased to attend mass in the 1950s yet contintued to be described as a Catholic writer. Mamalujo (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree (at least partly) with Mamalujo (and others) on two points. I didn't say that what sources say doesn't matter. But it matters only to the extent that it informs those of us in this discussion (or similar discussions) who make decisions here by consensus. Again, critics or what they write don't determine how a category is defined; we do. To say that "what we think as editors ... is largely beside the point" is inaccurate. Second point: Joyce's mind may be "saturated with catholica", which would define him as a writer about (or influenced by) Catholicism. Joyce's self-identification as a Roman Catholic would define him as a Roman Catholic. Those two facts are not interchangeable. Let me speak hypothetically. Writer X can be a Roman Catholic who attends Mass every day, but has never written a word about Catholicism. Writer Y can be an atheist (or a Muslim, or a Jew) who has written extensively about Catholicism. Those two people do not necessarily belong in the same category. I prefer that readers (Remember readers? That's who we are writing this encyclopedia for.) have some idea about what they will find when they see the title of a category (and then maybe read further to the category description). If I'm interested interested in what writers have to say about Catholicism and I'm a naive reader, I don't want to go to a category entitled "Roman Catholic writers" and discover (after wasting a lot of time) that most of them are Catholics but have never written anything about Catholicism. So, as I've said, I prefer to differentiate between categorizing a writer as a practicing Catholic and a writer who can inform me about Catholicism. Cresix (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither writer X nor Y would be in this category as I see it defined above, correct? You should create new categories, maybe? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear. Writer X would be in a category of writers whose faith is Roman Catholicism (however you want to title that, let's say "Writers Who Are Practicing Catholics"), but not Writer Y. Writer Y would be in the category of "Writers Who Write About Catholicism, but not Writer X. I realize, of course, that these are clunky category titles, but my point is that the title of the category should differentiate whether you are talking about writers who identify themselves as Catholics and writers who write about Catholicism. Cresix (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the place for discussing the redefining of Catholicism categories. I suspect the Catholicism Wikiproject would be the place. Also, narrowing categories that way would prove impractical. For example, the article on Graham Greene says he ceased to regularly attend mass after the 1950s. Does that mean he ceased to be a practicing Catholic? What if he still said the Rosary weekly, went to mass on Christmas and Easter and confession once a year? Is he still practicing? So does he fall in or out of the category? Pre 50s Greene in, post 50s Greene out (maybe)? It's silliness. Joyce belongs in the category. For the nuances, the "reader" "reads" the article. Mamalujo (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the very place for discussing the Catholic categories. Many of them are in a vague, confused and useless state. Who will clear them up if not editors such as us? Whether Graham Greene or Joyce should be categorised as Catholics are good questions that need exploring. The cats are only as useful as the articles listed under them. Span (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of discussing this elsewhere - like at Category talk:Roman Catholic writers or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism - is that those interested in the topic, but perhaps not so interested in Mr. Joyce, would see and participate. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mamalujo, you have missed my point. Please re-read my comments above. If Graham Greene writes about Catholicism, he could be included in a category "Writers Influenced by Catholicism" regardless of whether he never went to Mass or went to Mass three times a day. Anyone who writes about Catholicism, regardless of their personal beliefs, could be included in that category. Far from being impractical, it is one of the most practicel things we can do for readers (again, remember readers?) who want to find articles about those who write about Catholicism.Cresix (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Extra! Extra! The Vatican plans to canonize James Joyce! —Precedingunsigned comment added by 85.53.131.215 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the best way to describe Joyce's religion was that of a lapsed Catholic. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He detested Mathematics.

I'm reading Joyce, Chaos and Complexity, it states it was his weakest subject, although he had a taste for Geometry, which can be seen in theIthica episode of Ulysses and the night lessons chapter of Finnegans Wake. He determinedly studied it to win an exhibition, though. Should this be incorporated somehow, or is it unnoteworthy? I haven't read the whole book yet.--occono (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

At this point I won't comment on whether it belongs in the article, but it certainly isn't notable enough to be included in the lead. In reading the sections on his education, I couldn't find an appropriate place for such a statement. Maybe someone else can find the right wording, but in the mean time, please remove it from the lead. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. I got impatient :P I'm used to getting no response on Talk pages. (Also, the article doesn't mention his rejection of the support that Yeats and Gregory offered him, does it?)--occono (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it is notable? I think in an encyclopedia article it is not worth mentioning, although I see how it is an interesting fact in such a book that you are reading. Maxigas (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. --occono (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I can't understand what it doesn't have infobox. Every writer article does have it — Taro-Gabunia (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not required, and many editors dislike them because they add nothing new. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-- other articles having them isn't relevant to this article, and there has been no consensus to add one to this article. It is also incorrect to say that "every" writer article has one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
They don't add any information but they summarize it —Taro-Gabunia (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The usefulness (or lack thereof) of infoboxes has been debated in many places; if you want to add an infobox to an article, please gain consensus first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes and I'm debating and still can't understand why infoboxes aren't usefull —Taro-Gabunia (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The (reasonably) current consensus is here with some reasons. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Ezra Pound, Yeats, Louis MacNeice and Christina Rossetti among other writers do not have info boxes. Most composers articles also do not have info boxes as they are seen to misrepresent their subjects. See Thomas Tallis, Mozart and John Tavener. This is a long and on-going debate. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I know that it's long discussion but just realize - they summarize information and you don′t need to read the whole article—Taro-Gabunia (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem - they don't always summarize accurately, see WP:DISINFOBOX, nor should a person such as Joyce be reduced to an infobox. For those who don't want to read the entire article, the main points are covered in the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Infoboxes never add value to article, they just summarize it —Taro-Gabunia (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about this as well. The fact is the influences/influenced section would be pretty helpful, and it would certainly add a conclusive sense of his place in the literary canon (a pivotal one) to the article. Having checked, I know that many of those Joyce considered vital influences aren't noted as such in this article, or given significant weight at least, and even more of the writers who were influenced by him go unmentioned. Pound should probably also have an infobox for this reason, given his diverse tastes, but he's a less significant literary figure allover. Guys, this could be very helpful. Maybe it's not necessary for Shakespeare to have one of these, but more recent authors should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by76.226.97.38 (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

He was influenced by everybody and has influenced everyone since. Span (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be made more explicit in the section dedicated to his legacy, stature, and influence? I'm fully aware of his importance, but I don't feel you really get a sense of it here. It's the same with Faulkner (if not worse). You'd think Hemingway was more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by76.226.97.38 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Span is right - it's very difficult to add the influences fields and in fact those fields remain empty on Hemingway. The only reason Hemingway has an infobox is because the image is lousy. At any rate, the influences are subjective and need cites - better to add to the articles of the specific works rather than to the biography article. As for Hemingway, or anyone else, being more important, it's simply a question of how much work has been done on the pages and the subpages, not a reflection of which writer is more important - again, a subjective issue.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

European artist

This article in its early stages describes Joyce as an Irish writer, but should it not point out that he liked to see himself as a European artist? Also, wasn't it the upset he had about his sister's health that some believe contributed to his relatively early death?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It goes without saying that he was European since Ireland is in Europe. I have not seen references to his attitude to his sister's death in any of my reading. Do you have an authoritative citation for that? That "some believe" is not up to Wikipedia standards of verifiability. It would need to be demonstrated that Joyce was actually so upset that it helped to kill him, not that "some" people "believe" it. Joyce died from a grave illness, not heartbreak. — O'Dea (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The first part of what you must be qualified, however, as Joyce wrote in a multi-lingual language as in Finnegans Wake and lived quite a lot of his adult life outside Ireland. The book where I read about the death of his sister was a book with a title such as "Makers of the Twentieth Century" - I read it back in the 1980s, so I cannot remember the full title now! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be quite reluctant to insert an appellation, such as the title of this section into the article. The second paragraph of the lead describes his emigration, and there is a significant section on Finnegans Wake which discusses the linguistic fusion there. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Joyce did not confine his eager polyglot glossolalia merely to European languages; he wrote also in Arabic, Hindustani, Malay, Persian, and Sanskrit, but it would not be correct, therefore, to call him an Asian writer. I, too, have "lived quite a lot of my adult life outside Ireland" —but so has the Dolly Lama. — O'Dea (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
"he wrote also in Arabic, Hindustani, Malay, Persian, and Sanskrit" No. He certainly did not write "in" any of those languages. He threw words from those languages into his English prose. GeneCallahan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not know about his knowledge of the Asian languages, but he could not speak them fluently. I believe that there were not all that many languages which he did speak fluently - the ones he did were English, Latin, French, German, Italian, Irish andNorwegian so that he could read Henrik Ibsen in the original - he did not really know vast amounts of languages besides that, but he did have smatterings of many other languages. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bulson p. 16

Infobox

*Support as a nomintor I think this article should have infobox —178.134.63.228 (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the Talk page and its archives. We've had this discussion many, many times. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Two sections up is a discussion about the infobox. Consensus is not to have one. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You can bend it...

... and twist it. You can misuse and abuse it, but even God cannot change the Truth. I think I understand the problem. Will you please think about it: Joyce is no more or less Irish for being more or less Catholic. In his blessed memory, please, do not lie any more. Read his letter toNora of August 29, 1904. --85.53.140.23 (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you think is a lie? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
We've been through this discussion before (see the discussion re Catholicism above). You should note that even among scholars who consider Joyce to have remained a complete apostate, from the point of his stated rejection of the Church (1898?) through the end of his life, he is still commonly referred to, for numerous compelling reasons, as a Catholic author. Then there are Joyce scholars such as Strong, Kenner, Noon, Boyle and others (see the article) who take a different or nuanced view regarding Joyce's apostacy from Catholicism. In light of these facts and Wikipedia's prohibition on original research, the article is included in the category for Catholic writers. You should also note that the article states "By the age of 16, however, Joyce, appears to have made a break with his Catholic roots" and later in the paragraph states the varying scholarly opinions on the matter. Mamalujo (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paul II, G. K. Chesterton were all Catholic people or writers. They believed in their God and in theCatholic Church, and in their work and views it was clear, it was explicit. They constantly claimed to be Catholic. They do not conceal it. So the category in English Wikipedia doesn’t lie on them. However, Wikipedia lies in the case of Joyce, who resigned to Catholicism at age 16, which is demonstrated continuously by his actions and his writings. (No fear. Cfr. Article in Spanish.) Joyce did not believe in the church, Joyce did not love God, Joyce continually ridiculed priests and religion. I'm so afraid you have not read Joyce. Just you dare, copy here the letter to Nora of August 19, 1904. Scholars who you say, these Strong, Kenner, Noon, Boyle, merely present their views. If I were Catholic I do not hide it. I´m proud of it. And you? Do you hide? Proud? If Joyce were a Catholic, was well hidden. If this subjet isn´t safe, if you can´t prove, the best thing you can do is remove the category. Neither Catholic nor Atheist. If you keep the category, you are lying to the world about James Joyce, an Irish writer. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 85.53.137.218 (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC) --85.53.137.218 (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that scholarly opinion does not see it as so simple and so black and white as you do. William York Tindall refers to Joyce as "a Catholic, however heretical". And others have pointed out that his feelings expressed in his early letters to Nora and Stanislaus seem to reflect Stephen in Portrait but not necessarily the more nuanced view from the time of Ulysees and FW. Clearly there was an alienation, but the continuing nature of it is what is somewhat unclear. Later in life when he was asked when he left the church he answered, "That is for the Church to say." Plainly, not the Joyce of August 19, 1904. Among others, Brenda Maddox says that Joyce never fully left the Church. She also refers to "his former sweeping aversion to the Catholic Church." He also acted as godfather at the baptism of Ford Maddox Ford's child, purportedly out of friendship - but his earlier view would have not allowed this. It has also been noted that he would visit a local church while Nora was in the hospital, and on other occassions he also slipped into church both according to witnesses and his own writing. Of course, our analysis of all this is beside the point, it is scholarly opinion that matters, and it is accurately reflected in the article. As to the category, even those who see Joyce as a lifelong apostate commonly refer to him as a Catholic author. Take this title from Geert Buelens: "An Excessive, Catholic Heretic from a Nation in Danger: James Joyce in Flemish Literature". Mamalujo (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
If the category is the point of contention, then I do not believe we WERE lying. The Category:Roman Catholics (of which Roman Catholic writers is a sub category) WAS defined in such a way that someone that left the church but whose notability was tied closely with the religion fell under the definition of the category. It has, since I last looked, changed to be less broad. I personally think it useful to the reader to have Joyce listed as a Roman Catholic writer (in the sense of "highly influenced by the church") because he does deal with themes related to the church (as you say, he "continually ridiculed priests and religion."). The article seems to address the details of this particular case so as not to mislead the interested reader. But if he does not match the category as defined (a question I will remain neutral on), then it does not belong on the page. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It’s you who see the matter of one colour. Unclear is the matter for you, of course. Not for me.

2. Brenda Maddox, William York Tindall…? I have the testimony of: James Joyce, Stanislaus Joyce, Richard Ellmann, Harold Bloom,Nora Barnacle... Please, don’t laugh at me.

3. Have you really read Ulysses, Finnegans? I doubt it so much. I want the text of the letter, haven’t it in English. Just you dare. "That is for the Church to say": Ha, ha. What does it mean? Please! Joyce was a great joker and thought precisely about you.

4. “Even those who see Joyce as a lifelong apostate commonly refer to him as a Catholic author”, “a Catholic, however heretical". Oh, yeah?

"Someone that left the church but whose notability was tied closely with the religion fell under the definition of the category"? Don't you really see? Then Augustine of Hippo is included in the category of perverts and Lucifer among angels. Gross, scandalous fallacy.

Sorry: This use of categories “absolutely mislead the interested reader”. Suposse I am a german writer born in 1917, Heinrich Böll. In 1945 I am somehow highly influenced by the knowledge of horrors of Nazism, but this doesn’t make me a nazi. Yes? If you say I am a Nazi writer, you’re lying about me. But you don't lie if you say I'm a Catholic writer. It is not difficult to understand.

“Roman Catholic writer (in the sense of "highly influenced by the church")”: Highly influenced is only “influenced”. V. gr. I am strongly influenced by Renaissance, but I am a cubist! Don’t lie on me to the people that doesn’t understand that subtleties! Therefore, if you say James Joyce is in the category “Roman Catholic writer”, you are lying about James Joyce, an Irish writer in foreign parts, still, always still! Please, respect his blessed memory and the "misleaded interested reader". Remove the category or I do.--85.53.146.79 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Accuser silent? Brothers, beware of categories! Who is the main recipient of the articles in Wikipedia? For whom they are designed? Many people of low and medium culture! V. gr. people who ask for "Living people" and don't want to get "Dead people". People wondering "Born in 1917" and don't want "Born in 1977". People asking for names of perverts and don't want to see among them Augustine of Hippo, a former pervert. People asking for writers of Catholic faith and don't want among them the false, one blasphemous: James Joyce. Do not lie them. Do not manipulate information for your personal interest or the interest of your group or church. Beware of categories. God discovers before a liar than a lame. Respect his blessed memory. Respect readers of low and medium culture. Do not lie any more. Please, remove the category. Amen.--85.53.142.102 (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Calling your fellow editors liars an implying malevolent intent is not a way to invite interaction or draw them to your position.--John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't call you liar. Excuse me, is a very delicate matter. Wikipedia cannot call white to black. W. must respect the memory of personalities. W. should not confuse people, especially if people is of low or medium culture. Neither Catholic nor Atheist. See the German wik. We are tired of such religious manipulations. This is it and nothing more. Any major dude will tell you (Steely Dan). Thank you very much for remove the wrong categorie. Kh.--85.53.129.217 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, brother Kh. Sorry, you're too purist, too naive. The category "Roman Catholic" is the best place for him to continue developing his invaluable work. Ye know, between Francis of Assisi and Josemaría Escrivá ;-) See you later. --Sürrell(talk) 11:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No mention of his letters?

I'm surprised there's zilch about his letters in this article (other than the sterile mentions in the lists of publications).

I was going to add a note about the letters which were burnt, such as the letters Joyce sent to his brother Charlie (the zealously Catholic wife of Joyce’s brother Charlie forbade him from her house and forbade her son any further contact with his immoral uncle. She threw Charlie’s copy of An Exagmination Round his Factification for Incamination of Work in Progress, a book of essays on Finnegans Wake , on to the fire and later destroyed all his brother’s letters and signed copies of his various books.[4]).

There's also something to say about the letters burnt by his grandson Stephen Joyce, but I haven't found the full story there.Gronky (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the letters which reveal Joyce to be into Eproctophilia. I believe this may even be the reason why people avoid using his letters altogether, even though this is a bias. I love Joyce and respect his work and was startled to learn of his more vulgar letters to his wife, espacially regarding his fetish for farts, but it should be included in the article. It is mentioned on his quote page so why not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by109.77.79.161 (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't confirmed the fart fetish claims, but for anyone needing sources, there's info at:
One general remark I'd make is that the word "fetish" is often abused. Someone liking something as an optional extra during sex does not make that a "fetish". IIRC, the definition of a fetish is something more like when someone can't get pleasure without the object of their fetish. Gronky (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Giorgio/George 2

Since this has popped up again, and I'm re-reading Ellmann's biography, it might be worth noting that he refers to GJ as Giorgio until 1923; then he notes (p. 556) that he "now preferred to be called" George. References after this point call him George. So my position would be:

- both forms are fine. In an article on JJ, which form of GJ's name to use is utterly trivial.

- it would be a good idea to mention both forms either at first mention, or around 1923, if GJ is mentioned thereabouts.

- choosing one form and sticking with it, or using Ellmann's strategy and switching around 1923, would both be reasonable.

HenryFlower 07:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about points one and two (and have no preference between George and Giorgio); with respect to point three, I think we should stick to one name. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, pick one name and stick to it. Wikipedia is for a general audience, so articles have to be understandable without specialist knowledge.Gronky (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Best to inform readers of the issue itself, mention that the family spoke Italian together so naturally the boy was called Giorgio. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Legacy and Stephen James Joyce

The last paragraph of the Legacy section is devoted to the dispute with Joyce's grandson over use of letters and other materials in the literary estate. This dispute is given undue weight here. It need not be addressed at all in this article, as it does not inform us on Joyce's life or work. The dispute is already covered in the separate article on Stephen J. Joyce, and the expiration of copyright has made more of these materials availble for use. I therefore propose to remove the last paragraph of the Legacy section, dealing with the dispute. Kablammo (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that due to length, it does give undue weight compared to the rest of the section. But I think it should be pared down to a sentence or two rather than removed completely. The block on academic research that is specific to Joyce's work is exceptional among great authors. The estate's handling of Joyce's legacy is a crucial part of "the story of Joyce."Vincent Moon (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
According to the New Yorker article, "Most prickly literary estates are interested in suppressing unflattering or intrusive information, but no one combines tolltaker, brand enforcer, and arbiter of taste as relentlessly as Stephen does, and certainly not in such a personal way." So according to this third party source, Stephen J. Joyce's actions are truly exceptional. And while we don't need any character assessment of Stephen J. Joyce on James Joyce's page, a lay reader would not know there were any estate difficulties (to be read in more detail on Stephen J. Joyce's page), if it is not mentioned. And it seems the Legacy section is the most reasonable place to mention it. Vincent Moon (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Vincent Moon. Some mention of the peculiarities of Joyce's legacy would seem to be essential here. Sindinero(talk) 10:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have shortened it. Kablammo (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Middle name: "Augustine" vs. "Augusta"

Peter Costello, in James Joyce: the years of growth, 1892-1915 gives his name as James Augustine Joyce, for his paternal grandfather, Costello (1992) p. 53, and the Birth and Baptismal Certificate reproduced in the article also shows "Augustine". Ellman says: "The second child, James Augusta (as the birth was incorrectly registered) . . .". Ellmann (1982) p. 21. Should not we use the intended and baptismal middle name of "Augustine"? Kablammo (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Joyce and journalism

An IP editor keeps changing "occasional journalism" in the last sentence of the first paragraph to "occasional criticism". In its last edit summary, the IP made its first explanation:

Joyce expressly did not write journalism, but criticism

I disagree, as did Joyce himself. Kevin Barry writes in the introduction to Joyce's Occasional, Critical, and Political Writing (Oxford, 2000):

Joyce was satisfied with his contributions to Il Piccolo della Sera and commented to his brother Stanislaus, 'I may not be the Jesus Christ I once fondly imagined myself, but I think I must have a talent for journalism.' (p. xiii)

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

article request: Joyce biographer/critic

  • No harm in asking; ignore if you don't wanna do it. Joyce biographer/critic Herbert Gorman some redlinks; see gorman and gorman and Gorman. He wrote.. maybe the first biography? Spent time with Joyce etc. • Serviceable†Villain 02:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I would say ″Yes″.Keith 02:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed link (slideshow not in the link)

Joyce's Dublin – slideshow by Life magazine

Template:James Joyce

Why is "The Cats of Copenhagen" included as one of the works of Joyce in the Template? That seems entirely misguided. "Cats" is a throwaway piece of writing, a whimsical letter to a child, that only achieved independence when it was published in 2012. If "Cats" is one of the works, why not "The Cat and the Devil"? Indeed, why not Danis Rose's "Finn's Hotel"? Rc65 (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Do these have their own Wikipedia entries? This might be why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.83 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Il lupo perde il pelo ma non il vizio - translation

I have noticed that the translation for the quotation 'Il lupo perde il pelo ma non il vizio' has a small error, 'pelo' in Italian means hair, not skin. Consequently the translation should be: 'the wolf may lose his hair but he won't lose his vice'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.108.91 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

New article Finn's Hotel (published lost Joyce works)

This just passed through AFC; could someone take a squint to more smoothly integrate into the other Joyce works on Wikipedia? Add it to the appropriate place on the Joyce template, give it the right cats, etc? Also it's a little bare, and I understand there was some interesting controversy about this that could maybe be better covered in the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Syphilis

Kevin Birmingham The Most Dangerous Book has a chapter where he seems to have nailed the case down that yes, Joyce had syphilis, and yes, it was quite crippling. See also his Annotations in a very recent issue of Harper's, I think last month's. Choor monster (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Only "in the modernist avant-garde"?

James Joyce is not "one of the most influential writers in the modernist avant-garde of the early 20th century". James Joyce is "one of the most influential writers of the early 20th century all around the world".--Sürrell (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

ːːHe, he. What the hell you say? Only "of the early 20th century?" I reserve my opinion. I re-serve my (spanish) o-pi-nion. --Sürrell (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hark, a vagrant

Would it be noteable to discuss the impact that James Joyce has had on comics such as in strip 32 of this webcomic by Kate Beaton? Ranze (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

James Joyce
Photograph of Joyce in profile
Joyce in Zurich, c. 1918
BornJames Augustine Aloysius Joyce
(1882-02-02)February 2, 1882
Rathgar, Dublin, Ireland
DiedJanuary 13, 1941(1941-01-13) (aged 58)
Zurich, Switzerland
OccupationNovelist, poet
LanguageEnglish
Alma materUniversity College Dublin
Notable worksUlysses (1922), Dubliners (1914), A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), Finnegans Wake (1939)
SpouseNora Barnacle
Signature
James Joyce signature

In the article, there's a comment:

<!-- Please do not add an infobox. The idea has been discussed and rejected many times. -->

However, there's no reference to these discussions, and there are none on this talk page, and I see no reason for there not to be an infobox (they're highly useful, and there's obvious precedent for its appropriateness). What is this comment on about?

Jameshfisher (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The talk page archives contain several such discussions, and reasons why an infobox is not used here. Kablammo (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the most recent poll/consensus was in 2010, I am writing this in March 2014 - perhaps have a quick poll? My objection to it(as an outside editor) is that I think it looks stylised just to have the signature and the portrait. Somebody coming here to find out who Joyce was would be served better by an infobox outlining his literary movement/era etc. Thoughts? KingHiggins (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Part of the anti-infobox argument was that "Influences" and "Influenced" were impossible to accommodate. But those two keywords are no longer supported. Choor monster (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I concur that an infobox should be added. Infoboxes are helpful to readers as they provide basic information in a quickly accessible manner. I expect that many readers come to this article looking for a quick answer to when/where Joyce was born, the name of his spouse, etc., and it is much faster to see this in an infobox than to have to scan through the lengthy article. Times have changed since 2010 and infoboxes are now standard practice. I note that the following articles on authors of similar stature all have one: Marcel Proust, Virginia Woolf, William Faulkner, Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald. --Albany NY (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Consensus change change. I've decided to be bold and add an infobox, because I and the other editors in this discussion believe it adds a great deal of value to the article. I encourage others to add appropriate facts to its fields. --Albany NY (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Modernist reverted my addition of the infobox with the comment "per consensus". Clearly the comments by myself and others in this thread show that the consensus about not including an infobox is no longer in force. We need to have a discussion about this, not simply revert each other's changes, which I fear could devolve into an edit war. I am therefore starting a request for comment (see below). For reference, the previous discussion on the topic is here. --Albany NY (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I've put a copy of the suggested infobox that was removed in this section as an aid to debate. --RexxS (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you - but goodness, what's all the fuss about? It looks perfectly innocuous. The dates need to be DMY, and the works a list, but thats trivial to fix, and no reason for its remobval. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article have an infobox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was asked on my talk page by the individual who opened the RfC to consider closing it. For those who don't know me, I'm Worm That Turned, one of the arbitrators on the Infobox case. I have no hat in the "infobox" ring, but rather base my thoughts on this finding of the case - Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
Numerically (in this section), the "for" infobox group significantly outweigh the "against", but the majority of discussion happened in the section below. Furthermore, the previous consensus previous consensus (and remainder of archive) and above section should be taken into account. Having read all these sections, I am convinced that there is No Consensus for an infobox on this article, in fact leading strongly towards not having one. There have been some bad faith arguments made by a couple of individuals advocating an infobox and an assumption that "it will do no harm" to have one, along with the standard argument of summarised information and microformats. The standard arguments hold less weight with me, as they should be discussed at a global level. On the other hand, those who advocate not having an infobox point out the aesthetics, the fact that it reached Featured status in this form. They also put forward arguments of what "could" be added, a standard argument against, and not one I accept as it's an argument for better stewardship, not the lack of infobox. Finally I note that putting a lot of effort into an article does afford you some sway, not to the exclusion of others and not against consensus - but in this case the personal aesthetics of those who've significantly written the article should be taken into account. WormTT(talk) 07:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Should the article James Joyce have an infobox? (see discussion under the previous heading and below for background) --Albany NY (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes; to provide our readers with a quick, handy summary of his key biographical facts, and to emit them as machine-readable metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Could you elaborate on the machine-readable metadata? I thought this came from the persondata at the end of the article. I noticed that the Google preview is still showing all the info clearly despite the article not having an infobox. -- haminoon (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Some of the information in an infobox is marked up with classes that create microformats; for example, the birthday field in the infobox is marked up as "bday", which enables standard microformat readers to reliably associate the value (1882-02-02) with Joyce's birthday. Persondata, unfortunately, never had microformat markup so would require a bespoke parser to make use of. Google, if I recall correctly, now prefers Wikidata for the raw data for its preview, but may use the data in our infoboxes for other purposes (e.g in conjunction with our article text to train its natural language parsers). Other re-users beside Google may still be using our infoboxes, of course. --RexxS (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Qualified Yes. Infoboxes work best in biographies when they can summarise the key information relevant to the subject's life and works. There may be cases where many key facts are not known, or are disputed, or are too nuanced to admit of a summary that is not misleading. It is therefore important to gain some degree of consensus on the likely content of an infobox when making the decision on whether an infobox would improve the article. It seems to me from looking at the infobox which was recently reverted (see section above) that there are sufficient key pieces of incontrovertible information about Joyce and his works to make an infobox useful for the casual reader. I agree with Andy that the provision of microformats that aid re-users of our content is a valuable bonus. --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
One of the problems is that our Joyceans have a pretentious attitude. Joyce is Joyce, see, and that means his article must get the Joyce-is-special treatment. What's good for our readers is irrelevant. The master knew better, see, about what people ought to read, and so do they. For an explicit, rather egregious, example of this attitude causing damage to the article, see this diff [5], where I removed the long-standing completely ridiculous alt-caption, apparently written so that our blind readers also get the maximum Joyce-is-special immersion. Choor monster (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I've found that it's better in the long run to avoid personalising differences in editors' views. Although I disagree entirely with some editors' opinions on infoboxes, there are many other areas of article improvement where common ground can be found and it's much easier to collaborate with fellow editors without the sour taste of personal dislike to hinder the process. On the subject of alt text, you're quite right about replacing it, but I doubt that the very long description-in-minutiae is anything special to Joyce. Wikipedia went through a phase of trying to produce alt text that described every nuance of images because of some - shall we say over-zealous? - advice at WP:ALT. Have a look at that page as it was in e.g. March 2010 and you can see the likely reason why editors picked up the habit of putting every detail into alt text. HTH --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I've stricken out the "egregious" example. Yegads, that stuff was nuts. (Thanks!) Choor monster (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Its useful with writers to be able to see quickly and at a glance birth dates/death and other material which provides at a glance material for time-line information. While I studied Joyce and am fairly familiar with his work being reminded of an exact date to determine, for example, who might have written at about the same time he did can be useful information if accessible quickly. In research and teaching its important to remember that there are multiples ways to present information, and for different reasons. An info box provides a quick-glance kind of information, a lead, a summary for an in-depth look at the information, and the article itself an in-depth scrutiny. While presentation formats for information may overlap; they do not have the same uses.If we are providing help for the reader my question is always why not. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC))
Not that it matters, but for the record, I should hardly be considered one of the "principle editors of this article". And also for the record, I'll just say have misgivings about infoboxes here and elsewhere, but Choor monster comments above and below make me not want to participate further in this discussion. Paul August ☎ 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem then becomes defining "principal editors". In this article, with all due respect to Sandy, Paul and Malik, the top three editors didn't contribute 90% of the edits. But that is probably irrelevant; what is more problematical is that - by your reasoning - if I were to make 160 edits to this article, I could then unilaterally decide whether or not it should have an infobox. I think civil discussion of the value added (or not) by an infobox is a far better way to proceed on a collaborative project. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course I agree with you that this is a collaborative effort indeed this is a collaborative project. Sandy, Malik and Paul have 385 edits to this article between them (I have 18 edits) and have all voiced their objections to an infobox and my point is to allow them their voice in this discussion. However if you can add 160 well sourced edits to this article - frankly - I'll be impressed and pleased...Modernist (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to think I could find the time and energy to make 160 edits to this article, but my point is that I don't think that should entitle me to an overriding vote in this case. I admit that I'm always predisposed to give extra weight to the opinions of those who have made the most contributions to an article, as they are most likely to understand the subject and to be familiar with the sources. Nevertheless, I still want to hear the policies that their opinions are founded on, otherwise we may fall into the trap of argument from authority. --RexxS (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, per my comments under the previous heading --Albany NY (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes as it's generally helpful to the readers who want to see at a quick glance. –Davey2010Talk 00:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes -- it is a helpful tool that can help readers get a quick glimpse of the subject, before delving into the article. There is no harm in having one, and it can only be beneficial. If a reader is completely unaware of the person or subject discussed in the article, then the infobox cold serve a very meaningful purpose. Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 15:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment only these days I don't bother to !vote or to try to win an argument, and I only comment on pages that I have on watch, but thought I'd mention this: I looked at the box and noticed the links to his works, which I'm familiar with, so they didn't much interest me. I'm not terribly familiar with his wife though, so I clicked into her article and found myself reading in with some kind of fascination. The first, and only, sentence in the lead tells us she was his wife and muse. In the body of the article we learn they wrote pornographic letters to another. I read on and on and as it happened never managed to navigate my way back here, where I would have learned, among a myriad of other things that Joyce had terrible eye problems, something that would be upsetting to any writer. Victoria (tk) 23:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox reconsideration

Closed per outcome of RfC above WormTT(talk) 07:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per section above, apparently the infobox format has already been amended and the influenced/influences which was the issue is already removed from the template. Another discussion regarding the matter should be started.EverestXT (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it. There's a perfectly suitable template that should be completely uncontroversial, and it looked sill with just his portrait and signature anyway. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
There are many problems with infoboxes-- beyond just the "influence" matter (let's consider what will happen when someone invariably tries to add religion here, for example), and apparently "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", since to my eye, the infobox is what looks silly. This is a featured article; please review WP:OWN#Featured articles and gain broader consensus for controversial changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Somebody will invariably try to add Religion? Really?? You mean, the way people have invariably kept adding "Religion" to the Samuel Beckett infobox? And why do you bother bringing up the long-dead completely non-existent "Influences" issue? You're just flailing, making up crap on the fly.
For comparison, the only explicit acknowledgement in the entire Amos Oz article that he is personally Jewish is in the categories! Choor monster (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Aren't you nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
And making seriously bogus objections was sweetness and light on your part? Not at all. Choor monster (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Many editors think that infoboxes are inherently problematic, for many reasons, not least of which is the cookie cutter mentality they reinforce. Paul August ☎ 11:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and from a purely esthetic point of view, surely the elegantly simple picture and signature are more visually pleasing. Paul August ☎ 12:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Many editors think that Wikipedia articles are inherently problematic, for many reasons, and think the problems with infoboxes should be approached like everything else. In particular, many editors think your personal certainty about aesthetics has nothing whatsoever to do with what should or should not be in a Wikipedia article. Choor monster (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
So my views don't count? Paul August ☎ 17:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course not. Sheesh. Why on earth would you think they count? This is Wikipedia, and what really counts are arguments based on policy and guidelines. Our primary goal is to provide encyclopedic information in ways that readers will find useful, convenient, and properly sourced. Aesthetics? Or worse, your personal sense of aesthetics? No, this is not an art project, and certainly not your personal art project. The only place aesthetics come into play would be in a choice of picture to use or similar concerns. Choor monster (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the argument in question: The argument is now moot. The problem has been solved -- the infobox used doesn't cite any ambiguous info which was the original contention. It follows the same format as most every other article biographical article that is similar. The parties who are contending to the contrary are showing a strong sense of ownership here and that is definitely a non wiki-policy. The problem being solved means that anyone who is further trying to remove the infobox is doing it for 'unreasonable reasons' -- meaning that since the rationale originally cited for removing the infobox has been rectified. Removing teh infobox at this point is simply due to someone not wanting to be wrong in an argument that no longer exists -- which is to say they are doing it for their own personal reasons. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Who died and left you in charge, Ryecatcher773? Edit warring over a featured article? Really? After SandyGeorgia cited the policy that says you were wrong to "just go ahead and do it" in the first place. Whatever "your own personal reasons" for preferring an infobox, two editors—one a permablocked sockpuppet—does not a consensus make. As the hidden text in the article indicated, until you unilaterally deleted it, there have been many discussions on this page of including an infobox in the article and they have rejected it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I seem to have waltzed in to a den of bad faith. (Are more SPIs needed?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And who elected anyone an official on this article? Your position as an Admin doesn't excuse you of the responsibility of weighing the evidence I presented and considering the argument at face value -- quite to the contrary actually. And BTW, I made the change over a month ago and no one -- seeing as there are so many who are so concerned with this FA -- even bothered to take notice until yesterday. And moreover, I'm still waiting for a counterpoint to my reasoning, which was elucidated both here and in my edit summary (which obviously no one, including yourself, bothered to read). Wikipedia isn't about ownership. And more importantly, but that isn't even the salient issue here. By not giving me any sort of a counterargument it just shows me exactly what I already suspected about the parties who are arguing against the infobox in the first place... especially now that the grounds for its exclusion have been rendered irrelevant. You automatons are nothing but a bunch of self-righteous control-freaks, which is one major reason why serious academics don't pay Wikipedia much mind in the first place. Have a nice day. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The "rejected many times" comment refers to an obsolete version of the infobox, where a major objection was the "influences/influenced" parameters were found hopelessly unusable regarding Joyce. The parameters have long been deleted from {{Infobox writer}}, so the previous consensus needs revisiting. And past arguments included lots of "do not like" and "redundancy is redundant", neither of which is an argument.
As a reminder, WP:CONSENSUS is WP:NOTAVOTE. It is determined by WP-based policies, guidelines, common sense, and so on. And so far, current anti-infobox arguments have consisted of irrelevant arguments, obsolete arguments, and appeals to aesthetics. Choor monster (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Choor monster and Ryecatcher773: Although I agree that WP:OWN#Featured articles quite specifically requires "Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version ..." (my emphasis), nevertheless it is far better to attempt to build a consensus before adding an infobox where one has been previously rejected - whatever the reasoning. I've spent considerable time debating the value of infoboxes and I can assure you that personal aesthetics is actually one of the strongest arguments against having an infobox. Fortunately, it is an issue where editors can agree to disagree and I'd suggest that is the best course here. In a section further up (#RfC: Should this article have an infobox?} there is an attempt to debate the question within the framework of an RfC. I'd urge all of the participants in this thread to contribute there. --RexxS (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
You can assure me that personal aesthetics is actually one of the strongest arguments against having an infobox. Really? Is this the famed Sixth Pillar, or what? If that is one of the strongest arguments against, than what I'm hearing is that every article whatsoever should have an infobox, because "personal aesthetics" is nowhere, nohow a consideration for anything on WP outside one's personal Userspace and customizations. Choor monster (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The Sixth Pillar is Accessibility, but let's not worry about that now. I suspect you're starting to get the thrust of my argument, anyway. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scholar

The section which refers to Joyce appearing "In 1901, the National Census of Ireland lists James Joyce (19) as an English- and Irish-speaking scholar" appears to be out of context. I suspect that the editor thought that scholar was a reference to Joyce as a writer. Actually that is the normal term in a census of the period for a school child or university student.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxology

Featured Article without an infobox? Is that a record?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah! just noticed this issue has been extensively discussed. Sarah777 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Joyce and Religion section"

Added information:

Stanislaus Joyce spoke of Joyce's turn on the Catholic church as his 'interim religion' (Geert, 90). More specifically, judging from reading Joyce's later views, we can see that he developed the attitudes of the artistic avant-garde during this time period (Geert, 90). During this time, artists and writers similar to Joyce were turning away from scientific materialism and creating a new spiritualism by considering theosophy, anthroposophy, occultism, and rosicrucianism.

-Included a link including the definition of rosicrucianism, since most users will probably be unfamiliar with this spiritual following.

Lernout, Geert. Help My Unbelief : James Joyce And Religion. London: Continuum, 2010. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 7 Dec. 2016.

ALSO

John Joyce took out a final mortgage on November 3,1903, and knew this would be his last (Ellmann, 143). This dire portion of Joyce's familial life appears in Joyce's works, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and later in Ulysses (Ellmann, 143). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenrenz (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The archiving for this page

is all kind of messed-up. I am going to try to fix it up - bear with me if I make a mistake (like I just did) but I think *that* was because Archive2 had a pre-existing "closed" archive-template at the bottom... (sigh). Shearonink (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on James Joyce. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Joyce/Archive_2&oldid=1141541735"