Jump to content

Talk:James Joyce/Archive 3

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

(copied from my talk page [1] --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi Ronz — thanks for your message. I encountered that list of music scores where James Joyce appears as librettist and thought that would be a good external link / reference for his article in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that so many music scores were available with his lyrics, and considered that to be an interesting contribution. Could you expand on your views about it, please? Thanks again. —Avorio (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It would help if you made some acknowledgement of what I believe is a conflict of interest on your part. I'm going to assume that you'll clearly disclose.
Am I correct to assume these are all James_Joyce#Joyce_and_music#4 "Music to Joyce's words"? We generally don't attempt to link an author's works, let alone works set to music with the scores. Look over WP:EL to get a feel for the general guidelines for external links. Please note WP:EL#ADV and WP:CURATOR. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What happened to the Infobox?

Hi all, I added an infobox and other updates for James Joyce to make it better, however most of my updates were deleted. The editors who dislike infobox are controlling this article. So messed it... SWP13 (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello SWP. Take a look at Archive 2, which has lengthy discussions about infoboxes. The consensus has been that one is not needed. I took a look at your other changes and it looks like most of them are still in the article. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Birth name

I have found his civil birth certificate that he was born James Augusta Joyce. 125.212.122.74 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a record of his birth, but is not the certificate. The certificate itself is to the right. Please see footnote 1 in the article, and this archived discussion on the talk page. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun

Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of 4 dead or dubious links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to run this in February, but too much unreferenced text has crept in. I'll check on this again next year. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Bad links of as today: http://www.nyt.net/books/97/03/02/lifetimes/nab-v-freud.html, http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780198187370.pdf, and https://brians.wsu.edu/anglophone/satanic_verses/joyce.html. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The article needs a lot of work to make it into a comprehensive yet concise biography. The talk page archives have stillborn discussions of needed changes and updates (including undertakings from me to check cites and authorities, which regrettably I have not done). The organization of the article should be discussed, as should the sections on his works (are they of the appropriate length, given the separate articles on those works?), and the adequacy of the final section on his legacy. Kablammo (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheated?

At present the article says that the 'teaching agency' was swindled. This seems unlikely, Joyce paid a Miss Gilford of the Midland Scholastic Agency £2/2s for a guaranteed teaching post at the Berlitz School in Zurich. Arriving in Zurich no such post existed. Either there was some sort of genuine mix up between Berlitz and the agency, or Joyce was swindled by Miss Gilford. In no scenario was the agency (Miss Gilford) itself swindled, as it/she had not paid out any money. Urselius (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The current text says "... that the agent had been swindled"? There's a scenario where the agent took Joyce's money in good faith and passed it on, either to the agency HQ or directly to the Berlitz School, only to be told, when Joyce eventually arrived, that there was no position? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking at various sources, there is no certainty about what happened or who was at fault or possibly behaving criminally. The agency was small and fairly obscure, it placed ads in newspapers offering prospective teachers teaching positions in continental schools. It operated as a middleman and took money off the prospective teachers that it offered places to, it seems highly unlikely that it made payments to the schools involved. The schools wanted teachers, that they would be ultimately paying a stipend to, why would they seek to make money from advertising positions? Joyce made enquiries of the police as to the character of Miss Gilford beforehand, and got assurances of her good character, but not as to the legitimacy of the particular teaching post on offer. On arrival in Zurich, there was no job. He received a letter, after contacting Miss Gilford in some anger, from the agency which included an apparent letter from Berlitz in Vienna offering the teaching post in Zurich. The Zurich Berlitz people contacted Vienna, who denied all knowledge of the teaching post. There is no record of Joyce getting his money back. The only definite loser in this was Joyce. At worst it was Joyce who was swindled, at best the reason for the situation arising is uncertain. But in no sense was the agency the loser. Urselius (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I see. So I think we can agree that Joyce lost his money and was a victim - probably of Miss Gilford, although we can't be 100% certain. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it is probably best to remove the positive assertion that the agency was swindled and replace it with something about the cause of the non-existence of the advertised job being unclear. As Joyce did in the end find employment, albeit not in Zurich, I think he just left the matter unresolved. Urselius (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Good idea. I wholly agree. Maybe someone will be able to find a more definitive source in future. I'm assuming the current content in that para is meant to be all sourced to John McCourt (2001). But I do not have a copy Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Have a look here: [2] Joyce was sent to Trieste by the head of Berlitz in Zurich, but the second job didn't exist either. It looks fishy - collusion between the Berlitz people and Gilford?? The Stan Gebler-Davies biography of 1975 (James Joyce; A Portrait of the Artist) says that Joyce "decided that he had been swindled", p. 138. However, I think some sort of uncertainty should be in the article wording, as the various sources do not agree fully. Urselius (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I have the Gebler-Davies, and I can concur that's on page 100 in my copy. The Elizabeth Switaj book you have linked to also seems a good source to use here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Aloysius

Is there a source that definitively names him as 'James Augustine Aloysius Joyce', seeing as he was baptised 'James Augustine Joyce'? I've seen this middle name everywhere but have never found any evidence to confirm it. SaucyJimmy (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica has 'James Augustine Aloysius Joyce' (https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Joyce) - Epinoia (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I queried the James Joyce Centre in Dublin, Ireland, about this and they replied, "At his baptism (5 February 1882) he was given the names James Augustine; at the registration of his birth (20 March 1882) the clerk mistakenly wrote Augusta instead of Augustine. However, when he was confirmed in June 1891 he took the name Aloysius. So his full name (from 1891 at any rate) was James Augustine Aloysius Joyce." - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Epinoia. I don't doubt your integrity and diligence for a moment. And thank you for taking the time to investigate this. But I'm afraid what you have added to the opening sentence of the article is pure WP:OR. Unless you can arrange for that, or a similar statement, to be published in the pubic domain, it is very likely to be removed as unverifiable and not WP:RS? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You are right, Martinevans123. I have reverted the edit - the James Joyce Centre has an online post about Augustine/Augusta with a web address that could be used as a citation, but nothing on Aloyisius. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Irish Politics?

Although he lived abroad much of the time, Joyce is thought of as a very Irish author, and the period of his life was a very turbulent and traumatic one for Ireland. Did Joyce have any involvement with or support one side or the other in the Irish Civil War? Have any opinion about Irish neutrality in WWII? Any political leanings at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.33.17 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Very good questions. I will check Ellmann and a couple of other bios I have of Joyce. Kablammo (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Joyce was largely apolitical. When young he called himself a socialist, mainly because he was always broke. He favoured independence, and famously admired Parnell, but saw Ireland as having betrayed Parnell. In A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man, Stephen Dedalus says, 'Ireland is the old sow that eats her farrow.' (A Portrait, 1964 edn., p.185) As a student at UCD he was persuaded by his nationalist friend George Clancy ('Davin' in A Portrait) to take classes in Irish, but he soon gave up because he strongly disliked the teacher, the fervent nationalist, botherer of small boys and future leader of the Easter Rising, Patrick Pearse. Pearse 'found it necessary to exalt Irish by denigrating English, and in particular denounced the word "Thunder" -- a favourite of Joyce's -- as an example of verbal inadequacy.' (Ellmann, 1982 edn., p.61)

Clancy also introduced Joyce to Michael Cusack, founder of the Gaelic Athletic Association, whom Joyce also took a strong dislike to: Cusack is the model for the idiotic nationalist bigot 'the Citizen' in the Cyclops episode of Ulysses. (Ellmann, p.61) In A Portrait, Stephen Dedalus mocks the militant strain of Irish nationalism, reciting to Davin, 'Long pace, fianna! Right incline, fianna! Fianna, by numbers, salute, one, two!' (A Portrait, 1964 edn., p.183.) Joyce was pacific and hated all bloodshed. He partly liked Arthur Griffith, founder of Sinn Fein, and Griffith's paper the United Irishman, because the movement was socialist and at that time non-violent (Sinn Fein was only later taken over by the IRA). However: 'What I object to most of all in his paper is that it is educating the people of Ireland on the old pap of racial hatred.' (Ellmann, p.237) Griffith was anti-Semitic, an anti-Dreyfusard and a supporter of the Limerick Pogrom of 1904 (euphemistically renamed the Limerick boycott by modern apologists), none of which Joyce approved of at all. In the Cyclops episode, the Jewish hero Mr Bloom refers to anti-Semitism as an injustice. One of the odious Citizen's nationalist hangers-on says, 'Stand up to it then with force like men.' Bloom answers, 'But it's no use... Force, hatred, history, all that. That's not life for men and women, insult and hatred. And everybody knows that it's the very opposite of that that is really life.' 'What?' ...'Love... I mean the opposite of hatred.' (Ulysses, 1960 ed., p.331.) Joyce's opinion of what is politely called 'the physical force tradition,' from which the main Irish political parties all stem, can therefore readily be surmised.

Joyce chose never to return to Ireland after 1912. He took remarkably little notice of the Easter Rising or the War of Independence because he was busy with Ulysses and he simply preferred to turn away from bloodshed (sitting out the Great War in neutral Switzerland). He was briefly pleased by the Treaty and the creation of the Free State in 1922, but was soon disillusioned by the piety and sobriety of the nationalist ethos: 'Ireland sober is Ireland stiff.' (Ellmann, p.533.) He wouldn't visit during the Civil War; Nora and the children did, and their train from Galway to Dublin came under fire from both sides, which appalled Joyce. The only good thing about the Civil War, to him, was Oliver St John Gogarty's bold escape from the IRA by diving into the Liffey, which Joyce found quite funny. (Ellmann, p.535.) It was, after all, just what Buck Mulligan would have done, and Gogarty, for all that he was an eminent surgeon and a Free State Senator (till de Valera abolished the Senate for defying his will), is now remembered only as Joyce's Buck.

In Paris in 1925 the French journalist Simone Tery asked Joyce, 'Do you think Irish self-government is a good thing?' 'I don't think anything about it,' he said. 'What is your attitude towards the national movement in Ireland?' she pressed. 'To use an expression of your country, j'en ai marre [I'm fed up with it],' he said. 'I think you were already fed up with it twenty years ago,' she suggested. 'You could say forty,' he said. He was 43 at the time. (Ellmann, p.571) In 1931 Joyce and Nora moved to London for a short while to regularise their marriage under British law. At the year's end Joyce would not even travel to Ireland for his father's funeral, writing to T.S. Eliot on 1 January 1932, 'I did not feel myself safe and my wife and son opposed my going.' (Ellmann, p.643) Later in 1932 Joyce declined to attend a St Patrick's Day party in Paris as guest of honour because the Irish ambassador Count O'Kelly would be there and it might imply approval of the Free State. 'I care nothing about politics... They are doing many things much more efficiently, I am told, than was possible under the old regime but any semblance of liberty they had when under England seems to have gone -- and goodness knows that was not much.' (Ellmann, p.643.) Joyce found de Valera's Catholic, Celtic nationalism oppressive. The article's laborious pretence that he remained somehow a covert pious Catholic is obviously false.

In 1940, under the Nazi occupation of France, Joyce, Nora and their son George found themselves, as British citizens, enemy aliens, even in the Vichy zone. Their movements were restricted and Joyce potentially faced the theat of internment like P.G. Wodehouse. He planned on escaping to Switzerland again, but this was difficult, especially as his and Nora's British passports had expired. The Irish embassy suggested applying for Irish passports and neutral citizenship, but, even in these circumstances, Joyce refused to become a citizen of the Free State, or Eire as it then called itself. The fact that he would rather have been arrested by the Nazis than ever lend fealty to de Valera's regime probably tells you something. In the end George persuaded the US charge d'affaires to extend the British passports ('If you can't, who else can?') and the family did escape to Switzerland, Joyce remaining a British citizen by choice till the day he sadly died a month later. (Ellmann, pp.737-9, 741) Khamba Tendal (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Khamba Tendal, this is valuable information and much of it can go in the article itself. Which edition of Ellmann are you using? Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Interesting that he would not apply for (neutral) Irish passports in 1940. The Irish state is still a small part in the venn diagram of Irish culture.78.19.205.160 (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Here's an interesting article, from America magazine, entitled "Why James Joyce said he was a Jesuit (but rebelled against the Catholic Church)" And here's an article at JSTOR Daily entitled "James Joyce, Catholic Writer?" I would suggest that they are sufficient to claim that Joyce actively rejected the Catholic Church. But his relationship with the church, as Andrew Gibson claims. was not simplistic. Surely that came later and early I his life, as the article currently claims, he just "lapsed"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The church had a huge influence on him, but was austere and authoritarian until at least the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Not a place for free thinkers and keeping up its Index Librorum Prohibitorum in his lifetime. But today's visitors to Clongowes Wood College will see him in a new picture gallery of famous old boys.78.19.205.160 (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Copy of Birth Certificate

The 2004 copy of the Birth Certificate was removed here. I tend to agree that it has limited encyclopedic value as an image. Could it be used as a source for date of birth, place of birth and/or baptism? The opening sentences of the "Early life" section are currently unsourced. There is no infobox where one might expect dates and possibly also sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It is based on an examination of the register of baptisms in the parish, and is the best evidence available. Possibly it is from a time when the only records are those of the parishes. (Ceoil, can you help here?) In any event it should be restored, possibly with a note calling attention both to its date and the assertion that it is based on parish records. Kablammo (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Apparently Ireland did start civil registration in the Nineteenth Century but not all births were registered. An online search at [3] does show the birth of a James Joyce born in Dublin in 1882: [4] Kablammo (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The image of the register linked there shows that the 2 February birth of James Agusta (sic) was registered on 20 March 1882. So aside from the spelling of the middle name, the civil register is consistent with the birth and baptismal certificate issued by the parish church. Kablammo (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The pic is best kept out; it adds nothing visually and is a primary source. There are secondary print sources that have formed a consensus and should be more ideally referred to. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I see it has now just reappeared, although the rationale in the edit summary was not that convincing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
There are secondary text sources about all the portraits, photos and memorials as well. Let's keep all the ephemera to humanise the page.78.19.205.160 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of whether it's worth mentioning a certain event

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Joyce&oldid=prev&diff=846340925 I dispute this is vandalism, it's simply including detail from the cited source, so I found the warning I got a bit unfair. But I agree it can be debated as worthy of inclusion. I think it's relevant because it reflects the period (no privacy in crowded family homes in that time to get away with it at home) and, well, Joyce has a reputation for sexual freedom. Does anyone agree if it warrants inclusion?--occono (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

All you added was the explanatory quote from the existing source (The New Yorker)? How can that be vandalism? The actual episode is described, in the same terms, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
(ec)It's from an article by Louis Menand, who seems to be a reputable scholar, and I think it is appropriate to include in this article, given the importance of the day and of Nora Barnacle in both Joyce's life and his works. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
What they said. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Coryphantha: Was your edit perhaps a mistake? Paul August ☎ 14:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
They have already said they mistook the edit as vandalism and said sorry for warning me about it. Still, it's probably worth getting consensus on including it.--occono (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe that my edit may have been a mistake, in my own defense the topic itself seemed questionable at first glance and looked suspicious. If this paragraph is relevant to his article then possibly it should be included, but you can see how that particular aspect of his life seemed to me a bit too much for WP but that discussion should probably take place in a different section on this page. I do apologize for my edit and have reverted it. Whether or not that paragraph should remain should probably take place in a new section on this page. Coryphantha Talk 20:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that episode was not only pivotal in his relationship with Nora, but that it also had a direct consequence on his literary output. A defining moment in his life, one might argue? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I'm not convinced it belongs in the article. Paul August ☎ 01:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Martinevans123. The significance of the event seems obvious to me, considering that Joyce chose to set his magnum opus on the very same date, 16 June 1904. The article has mentioned James and Nora's first date for many years. The only question in my mind is how to word the sentence. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs. The "Background" section of the Portrait article does a fine job of explaining the significance of the date without the unnecessary explicit sexual detail: "Their first date was on June 16, the same date that his novel Ulysses takes place." Even just to say that they had a sexual encounter would be better. Gemsbokian (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Any true student of Joyce will want all the gory details. It is a charming addition.78.19.205.160 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wanderings

  • [Lucia]'s parents' wanderings across Europe involved no less than 162 different addresses, most of them after Lucia's birth". (Clement Semmler, "A story you can drink", Weekend Australian, 14-15 Jun 1997, Review, p. 9)

I think this extraordinary degree of peripateticism deserves some mention. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

People associated with James Joyce

In this discussion there was consensus about deletion of Category:People associated with James Joyce and creating a list instead. The category contained the members as listed below. Anyone feel free to add a list of these people as a section to the article or to start a stand alone list. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

First italian traduction of ulysses 1960

Only late 1960 the mastrrpoece of joice entered italy a bigot country up then. The postribulous tours by Leopold bloom in Dublin where too harsh for pious & bigoyty italians at the time. Was promoted a literary premium for the best critic to italia. Edition fixed in 100.000 italian lira ( now sime 1'500 euros) and the winner was myself. The reward beeing delivered to me by Guido piovene, a fsmous italian writer. Feltribamba (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Problems with this FA

I hate to do it to the great James Joyce, but there are some problems here that need to be addressed:

  • The reference formatting needs to be standardized.
  • Some of the cited urls don't seem to be RS.
  • The article doesn't rely on any recent academic work on Joyce.
  • The article is also a little short, clocking in at around 35 kb.

That is all I see immediately. ~ HAL333 03:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There's also no infobox and, while I'm unsure whether they are required, virtually every other featured article I've read about a person has one. I think it's worth noting that the last review is from 2006 and I've noticed several former good articles and featured articles promoted in the 2000s be demoted recently (such examples include Kate Bush, promoted to featured article in 2007 and demoted in 2019, and Kanye West, promoted to good article in 2008 and demoted in 2020); a new review probably couldn't hurt. Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 21:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Talk:James Joyce/Archive 2#RfC: Should this article have an infobox? took place while it was a FA (over eight years after promotion in fact). FDW777 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Shloss (2005) and Jung

I've started with editing and sourcing some of the older, standard work. For example, changing some of the duplicate citations and quasi-sfn citations to sfn. In this way, I wouldn't disrupt the current citation style until more time for feedback was solicited. I started with Ellmann, but realized this is bigger than I thought. Citations are not quite accurate and pages don't align (this may just be version pagination mismatch issues- hopefully, though I'm not sure...). So, I switched over to authors with only one or two cites, but this has started to get interesting.

After a couple others, I went to Shloss, who describes Lucia's analysis with Carl Jung. Looking at the citations, the section in the article seems to misconstrue Shloss, Shloss does not state Jung thought Joyce was schizophrenic, nor does she have the "bottom of the river" quote. Rather, she suggests that Jung saw Joyce's writing was on the analogical model of it and may have slipped into a schizophrenic style. But, she also implies that Jung waffles in his analysis but states neither side directly. In the page with the second citation, she suggests that Jung sees Joyce consciously plays with madness as fuel for Joyce's genius as a writer. The statement about the "bottom of the river" seems to be a quote from an old 1983 Newsweek article by Pepper that partly reviews Shloss. Pepper appears to be no longer directly accessible or archived, but it resides on at least two secondary websites: istria.org and overblog. Pepper's line is given as a second-hand attribution to Shloss, but its not in Schloss. It's a possible inference and definitely more poetic, but Shloss carefully avoids such wording. Does anyone feel strongly about this either way? Right now, I changed it to reflect the what I saw in the sources (the citation pages should be linked to the source). I'm open to other editors certainly reworking it to better reflect what they see are in it. Wtfiv (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"having already failed to pass Chemistry in Dublin"

At UCD? At school? Can see no mention of failing Chemistry in Ellman pages 104-105? Slightly odd construction there anyway - either he passed or he failed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I agree. I just found the closest citation in Ellmann to the asserted point, but tried to keep the text. Its one of the mismatches that lead me to give up looking for Ellmann citations for the time being and seek the more sparsely cited references. I appreciate you cleaning it out. I'm finding that there is a lot of "reading" into the citations. I'll change some- like the Shloss above- but I'm trying to be conservative with making too many changes, so I'm glad you are following up as well. Ensuring that the statement matches the citation: One of the reasons why I'm a fan of trying to make all of this one (book pages) or few (journal articles) click verifiable. Again, thanks for taking a look at the citations and their implications! Wtfiv (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

James Joyce: A heavy duty FAR cleanup or a new GAN/FAC?

The best thing to do if there are significant mismatches is to rewrite instead of trying to match. The problem with an article like this is that it looked like this when it was promoted in 2004 at a time when the author almost certainly relied on good sources (given it was Filiocht) but we didn't require a cite per sentence. In the intervening years it's had text added, soures added, but there's not guarantee that anything will match. Linking directly to sources, though a nifty thing to be able to do, creates more busy work than needed, imo, when probably it's best to let the article go through the FAR process, get delisted, rewrite and bring it back to FAC. I've been watching and thinking about it since it's listing at FAR and feel that's the best approach. Also, though it's great to see the work, the complete change in citations probably might require some consensus per WP:CITEVAR, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 23:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Victoriaearle: Thanks for letting me know. It's a tough balancing act. Here's where I'm at with it.
I'm delighted to work with pull the article back from the FARC cliff, particularly if other editors are in agreement and will help out. I think this can be done, and in terms of my own participation far more fun. Right now, I'm trying to avoid changing the citation radically. (Maybe even using the sfn template as an editing tool is a problem? I should only use ref?) but most of my changes are right now just trying to ensure the references are complete, templated and accessible when possible.
I enjoy the care of a neglected garden. The main main focus is cleaning up nice work that has gotten weedy, pruning a bit of the shrubbery that has gotten a bit misshappen, reburying the roots of citations that are hovering in air, and adding various touches to address the additions of contemporary insight and taste. If the committed editors and FARC team approve (even by implicit peer-review, which I think is essential), that would be great. I've been trying to offer my editing style, to see if it suits the committed editors to this article.
On the other hand, I have no interest in walking this through a brand new GAN/FAC process. If the long-term editors committed to this article think putting it through GAN/FAC again is best, I have can see the argument for it and will assent to the consensus. But, I've learned GAN/FAC, particularly FAC, is not my editorial cup of tea ( or pint of Guinness, depending on one's taste). It certainly can be fun for those who've developed a taste for it, (I'd reference single-malt whiskey in honor of Ireland, but I can't tell you from experience, and anyway isn't Bushmills, the icon of Irish whiskey, Northern Irish?) I do have no wish to make the damage worse. I'll step back. I'm confident that there are bold editors in the wings who will eventually take on this article afresh and bring it from swerve of shore to bend of bay, ... a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs (e.g., the metaphorical estate of FAS [Fine Article Status]). Wtfiv (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wtfiv I deleted my comment because I have no business commenting at all when you're the person who has stepped up to do the work. If you can get it through FAR by tidying, that would be great and I completely respect, understand, and agree with your points. My fear is that if a.) there are significant deviations between text and sourcing (which is to expected on an article of this type), and b., the FAR nominees are requesting new research (though, honestly without a full literature review we can't know whether existing pre-2004 biographies are superseded by anything published since), you might find upon digging in that there's more to do than expected. But one never knows, hence my backing off.
In terms of changing citations it's typically a good idea to gain consensus on a featured article, but again since I'm not helping to standardize refs shouldn't really comment. Changing to templates, sfns, and linking pages directly to external websites is a big change and makes it a little less user friendly for others (that's how we end up with so many citation styles - people use what they are the most familiar with), so I'd been thinking about commenting, but perhaps solicit input from others?
Sorry, to have posted, bothered you, and then deleted my post (which seems to be back). I'm thrilled to see work here and since I rarely edit Wikipedia these days decided I couldn't take this one on myself when I saw the listing and decided it best not to chime in from the sidelines. Apologies again. Victoria (tk) 01:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Victoriaearle: I so much appreciate your replying! And, I'm so glad what you wrote wasn't deleted. James Joyce has a huge following and many, many people committed to his work, name, and aura. (how many American bars reference Joyce in one way or another?) I'll be bolder in my edits as I go along, but what puts me at ease is that editors like Martinevans123 and you are out there keeping an eye on things. It isn't even important that one comments. A "no comment" is a good sign. But edits are good too! There may be questions and disagreement, but going back to the "care and tending" metaphor, sometimes we have to be clear exactly what what the garden must have to reflect the needs of the commons. So, please do chime in, whenever you want, and especially when you think something need to be corrected. My concern, as I hope you can tell, is that my enthusiasm for the cleanup not be taken for disrespect of an article that has been decades in the making. Gratefully, Wtfiv (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Not considered as disrespect at all, but rather impressed at the energy and will to do the work. I'm not around that much, but it's on my watchlist and I'll keep an eye open. Victoria (tk) 02:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Keeping Joyce as a featured article

I came across this article as it has appeared in the Featured Article Removal Candidate List and is now slated for demotion. The reasons given are the ones related to by Hal333. (No mention of the Infobox as an issue.) Can we work on these and keep Joyce featured? To address the first three issue it seems to be the first step would be to systematize and update the citations. If I may, I'd like to move to a consistent shortened-footnote format for the article. That would include separating the notes from the references, updating and adding references and fixing links. At this point, length probably isn't so important, though if new material crops up, it may be worth putting in. (But that is case by case.) Let me know if there any concerns with this. If not, I'll start at the end of this week or early next week. Wtfiv (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm beginning to transition the article to sfn. I'll be doing this gradually, as I also add new (and sometimes substantially older) citations to broaden the base of reliable references. Wtfiv (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah - an infobox is not a requirement for an FA, and in that regard the status quo is fine. A sourcing overhaul and incorporation of what has been published on Joyce since this article was promoted would be the place to start. ~ HAL333 16:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Joyce's British passport

I saw an anonymous edit, that was reverted by @Epinoia:, making claims about Joyce today that was justified by Joyce having a British passport. Following up, I found an intrusive edit (e.g., a non-sequitor placed between a noun and its prepositional phrase) stating Joyce never gave up his British passport. I figured this is a somewhat heated topic, so I did some digging and added a paragraph with citations that hopefully puts the issue of Joyce's passport in context. Part of this includes a quote by Joyce (in Italian!), and the final Bowker (2012) citation also gives a Joyce quote justifying his claim. I'm hoping this will be useful to the article.Wtfiv (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Issues concerning work in progress (not the serial novel by that name, of course!)

I've just edited out some items in the Legacy section. Legacy, to me, refers to substantial culture influence, such as authors and literary movements that were impacted, how the author reached to disciplines beyond literature, and the author's large impact on global culture. Three of the paragraphs touch each of these. However, I removed Nabokov's critique. Nabokov is a great read, but his opinions are one of thousands by esteemed authors and critics. I also removed the comment about the Euro, as medallions and mementos are more artifacts that a legacy has been left behind, but not of the legacy itself. Is this okay?

Also, I'm thinking that the section called Career could be renamed. I'm not sure the very independent Joyce saw his life as a writer in terms of a career with its semantic associations. And, he really obtained very little of his liquid assets directly from his publications. My thoughts are to call it Exile, or better yet "Exile", with scare quotes to denote the irony, which I'd like to think is in the spirit of Joyce, that Exile is self-imposed. It also has the advantage of being the name of his only published play, following directly upon some verbiage in the article that follows his own self-description, and (this may work against it) allows all three sections describing his life to alliterate (Early Childhood and Education). Any thoughts or concerns? Wtfiv (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As I continue work on the 1903-1904 time in Dublin, it seems that creating the heading may be more complicated. The year and a half in Dublin, 1903-1904, is an important one. It's really not career nor exile. To keep things consistent with the previous organization, I put it all under Career (the sections I've recently edited were mixed in Education and Career), but I gave it its own subheading to tidy it a bit. Could Career renamed as something more inclusive that includes this time of wandering and trying things out, or should the 1903-1904 Dublin times have its own heading? My own preference is to call it something else and stay with Exile or Zürich and later, as that's when the writer begins to emerge in full force. Suggestions? Wtfiv (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost ready to update article lead? More images for article?

The major elements of the biography seem in place. (It was a lot more than "pruning", I hope nobody minds that I added three more sections to "the garden" (to continue the gardening metaphor). I didn't realize how bare the post-Dublin years were in the previous article. Unless, there is a concern, my next steps are :

  • Cleaning up references throughout the work
  • Rework first and second paragraph of legacy, particularly as information is discovered in tracking down the citations.
  • I'd also like to expand the first paragraph of Joyce and politics a bit, as this aspect of Joyce has undergone some major revision in the last 40 years, even more than his biography.
  • Most importantly- in my view- I think the lead is also ready to be expanded to summarize his biography.
      • The first half should be kept close to as is, for the most part, but one or two new paragraphs for his post Dublin life are needed.
      • Also, I like the final quote, but my own preference is to leave leads free of citations, so I'd probably move it into the "Works" section and paraphrase
    • I won't be touching the lead until I finish with most of the others, but I thought I'd put it out there if there are any issues or concerns. And, if someone else wants to try and tackle the lead in the meantime, please do.

Also, the Joyce photograph/copyright issue seems to be a barrier with this article. Would anybody be willing to add more copyright free images to Wiki commons? If so, that would be great. This article could use more images. But I feel that the sense of Joyce in terms of images is just lacking. Right now, statues and book covers are having to fill in. They'll do, if that's what we have to work with but it'd be great if we could more.Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow up. I added some pictures of some of the cities where he lived: Trieste, Zürich, and Paris. This should work if nothing else shows up. Put in a request to get a photo of University College at Joyce's time as CC share alike. (There's one already on commons, but the licensing doesn't look like it's legit. A related photograph by the same poster has been has already been deleted) Wtfiv (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Wtfiv, the ODNB usually has solid accounts of portraits/depictions for its subjects. I checked for Joyce [5] and indeed they have a good amount of images listed, with some information on their whereabouts and authorship. If you can't access the ODNB on your own you can go through the Wikipedia library to do so. I would recommend including the 1935 Blanche portrait as well, its here on the commons. Aza24 (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: Those are great! Thank you both for the leads and making me aware of the resources! I'll put the Blanche in. I think I can imagine where it can go Wtfiv (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wtfiv there might be some in the Shakespeare and Company Commons category, c:Category:Shakespeare and Company and/or these plaques, c:Category:Here published Ulysses (plaque), Paris. The modernists are difficult because of the dates. There might be some you can take from other articles, i.e Yeats, Pound, Hemingway. Victoria (tk) 22:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Found another Commons category, c:Category:James Joyce. The birth certificate is already there! Victoria (tk) 23:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, Victoriaearle! My fingers were crossed that one of us might also be able to work to get the 1882 Birth registry certificate with the misspelling My guess is that the Irish government will allow non-commercial use, but not the more expansive creative commons licensing we'd need to use it on Wikipedia. Yes, the relative modernity of the modernists makes getting pictures of the time really difficult! Wtfiv (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I doubt there's much I've posted you've not already seen, but one never knows. I was extremely frustrated when working on Pound, for whom there are a dearth of free images. Hemingway is easier. I have a vague memory of seeing an image of Hemingway, Pound, and Joyce in Paris, but my memory is shoddy these days and will have to remember which database I saw it on, find it, and determine whether it's free. At the moment it's no more than a faint figment of my imagination or memory, but will post here if it's a real memory and I find it. Victoria (tk) 23:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I totally understand! As to memory... It's very frustrating when I know I've seen a source supporting an editor's point, then can't find it again. Sounds like a great picture! Wtfiv (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for help for Joyce's original birth certificate

I'm reposting this (after having second thoughts and originally deleting) as it may be some of the Joyce watchers and editors may be able to help out.

This article has Joyce's "corrected" birth certificate, which has an explanation that it is the corrected one. I'm still trying to find a source for why the correction was made, but haven't found one yet. (It seems part of a Bloomsday centenary celebration). While researching, I found this site:

that apparently has the original birth registry of Joyce complete with the wrong middle name: "Augusta". Here's the image on the website asI found it:

This seems like a great find. If the copyright can be sorted out, it would be a valuable addition to the images in Wikipedia, and I imagine, in this article! Apparently, it is free to view at IrishGeneology.ie, which states it is part of the Irish government. But I'm not sure how Irish copyright law works with genealogical records, and how it interacts with American law. Records and copyright gets complex. Would somebody out there be willing to check this out and see if we can get the permissions to have this presented with creative commons copyright. I'm not sure how the Irish government would respond, but it seems worth a try. Wtfiv (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

For some background see discussion at Talk:James_Joyce/Archive_3#Copy_of_Birth_Certificate. Kablammo (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Prose suggestions

I have some comments on prose, which are suggestions only, and I do not intend to participate in the FAR.

Here are my comments on the first few sections; I intend to add to them in the next few days if time permits.

Lede

"best known" for Ulysses—probably true, but uncited. Is this necessary?

No need to link Paris; it is a world city.

"elucidated" Mark Twain might suggest not using a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do

Kablammo I do not intend to participate in the FAR either, but I'm working to keep the FA status. I haven't touched the lead almost at all. (I did removed the first footnote and bring it into the text.) Please rewrite anything you see amiss, particularly in the lead as I haven't worked with it. And, if you want to tackle the lead, please let me know.
Kablammo Lead has been redone. All your suggestions have been included. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Early years

Mention who Daniel O’Connell was in a word or two

This is another one of those I didn't touch. But I've added a clause on his role in Catholic emancipation.

"the family subsequently moved"—how about "and the family moved"

done

"cynophobia" and "astraphobia"--unnecessary technical terms

I agree- I've changed them.

"significantly" developed his writing talents—is the adverb needed?

done

University years

"impact" his writing style—how about "influence" instead?

done

“Roman Index” is linked, but why not describe what it is?

Changed it to the Roman Catholic list of prohibited books. The last four words being the latin for what it means.

Post-university years

"and Joyce himself spent much of his time"—as Joyce is the subject, why not just say "and he spent much of his time"

done.

The sentence beginning "his event was commemorated" could be shortened

deleted a few words, but please shorten it further.

"and would serve as one of the models" -- "was one of the models"

done.
Thanks! Please feel free to clean up the prose as you see fit. And in particular, I'm less comfortable editing the lead, though I think it needs a bit of work now. Wtfiv (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

--Kablammo (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

More comments on Prose (Copied from FARC Review)

Below are notes I copied from the FARC review. I will address as I go. Wtfiv (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes from SG

Focusing first of MOS trivialities:

  • Date ranges use WP:ENDASHes rather than hyphens: pls check throughout. 1915-1920: Zürich and Trieste
addressed this. Added an emdash in one place for punctuation. Wtfiv (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Expand caption: First edition of 1922
Expanded- now states: First edition of of Ulysses published by Shakespeare & Co in 1922
  • Some wonky punctuation ?? "Ah, they have no religion."[13]; although there is
Fixed this, though there may be more... please change if you catch them. In this one, I was trying to make sure that I kept a vignette that had appeared in the version of the article from before September. Wtfiv (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Check MOS:LQ throughout ?? Sample .. : "To My own Soul I dedicate the first true work of my life".[32] should the period be inside the quote ??
Tried to follow logical quotation throughout, but focusing on citations abutting punctuation can be distracting. This particular example is difficult because it's broken into multiple lines: "To/My own Soul I/dedicae the first/true work of my life." Here, I left off the period. I did a second spot check of quotes, I caught a couple. Wtfiv (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Check MOS:ELLIPSES throughout … sample … of the bosom of her Church...and her eldest son could
Fixed most of these, I think. Again, a second pair of eyes would be good. Wtfiv (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Punctuation: Stephen Hero was published after Joyce's death in 1944[73] …. Also … Joyce's knowledge of theosophy appears in his later writing, particularly Finnegans Wake[8 … I stopped there, but it looks like the rest of the footnotes should be checked for these trivialities.
I had noted that Stephen Hero was published in 1944 and had included a link to the work in archive.org, but took it out as I figured it was after his death and outside of his biography, and it is listed with date in "Posthoumous Publications". Similarly, the article mentions Joyce was exposed to theosophy in Dublin to give a sense of when this occured. You are right that the send-up of it is in Finnegans Wake. I didn't cover this, as I figured that's a better topic for the analysis of Finnegans Wake. But if you think including either in the article would be a good idea, please add them. Wtfiv (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC) I misread the concern here in my first reading. I actually did put in the details on Stephen Hero and Finnegans Wake. (I just remember my pondering whether I should or not.) I've tried to catch as many of these as showed up by checking punctuation preceding citation Wtfiv (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Check ps and pps throughout, and be sure that page, date and number ranges use WP:ENDASHes rather than hyphens. Ellmann 1982, pp. 505: Cited from Power, Arthur (n.d.). From an Old Waterford House. London. p. 63-64. Should be p. 505, and pp. 63–64. This needs fixing throughout citations. You can install and run user:GregU/dashes.js to fix dashes via script.
pp/ps fixed. I may have missed some, but I'm pretty sure I got the majority.
I did implement the script, but it seemed to not work. I know that a bot will clean up hyphens in the citation later. I hope that's okay.Wtfiv (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Got the script to work, the hyphen to endash conversion should be complete. (Most likely with some residual errors.)Wtfiv (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS:NUM, was the eldest of 10 surviving siblings; two died of typhoid. … 10 should be ten to avoid switchiing from digits to spelling out within same sentence.
fixed. Wtfiv (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • spacing error … an article,The Day of the Rabblement, criticizing the Irish Literary
fixed...Wtfiv (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Is Mark Osteen, wordpress.com, a reliable source? See WP:SPS … who is Osteen?
Mark Osteen is a professor of literature at Loyola. His 1995 book The Economy of Ulysses: Making Both Ends Meet. is one of the better ones-- in my opinion- looking at Joyce's system of economics, money and exchange from both a personal level and from the perspective of the personal economics of Dublin. It fits well with Joyce's anarchic/egoist position. Because it is more literary critical, there was no organic place for it in the article. The Osteen article I cited is from the journal Studies in Short Fiction (1963-2012). The section "A Curious History" provided an excellent, focused and approachable in-depth summary of the Grant Richard's publication of Dubliners, and provides a deeper context for interested readers about the problematics of punctuation in later editions. I cited it from his webpage because the full text is freely available there. Wtfiv (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Added Osteen's The Economy of Ulysses as source. Wtfiv (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • There are multiple instances of the word “subsequently”; see the top of User:SandyGeorgia, are they all necessary?
All instances of "subsequent" or "subsequently", three were changed to "later" or "then".
  • The template at the top of the article says (logically) that the article uses British English, but I see Amerian English … for example, two instances of criticize/criticizing rather than ise.
This is one of those places where it would be great for another editor to step in. I've worked on British English before, but my writing is American English. Would anyone else be willing to clean this up? Wtfiv (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Have attempted to implement cleanup Wtfiv (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • You can install and run user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to check for unnecessary duplicate wikilinks— I saw a few, although this is a judgment call.
I usually wait until the edits are complete, but except for the lead, I feel I'm pretty close, so I took care of it. I found 12. Wtfiv (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a brief start … I like to get trivial stuff out of the way before reading. Wow, a ton of work has been done here and I think we should have a good outcome here. That’s all I have time for just now, more later … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I've tried to address almost all the issues you mentioned (except for the en-dashes in the citations and references, as I couldn't get the script to actually work.) I'm sure there are many more things I missed, even with the help from some other editors, but I've tried to address almost all the issues you mentioned (except for the en-dashes in the citations and references, as I couldn't get the script to actually work.) Please fill free to edit.
(And, if you feel like you'd want to make a go of it, the lead could probably use a couple of paragraphs of expansion.) Wtfiv (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Kablammo SandyGeorgia I saw that most of the changes I made in response to both of your comments weren't published. It looks like I must have had two edit windows open in different tabs and saved the old one instead of the one with the changes I made, I think most of the changes are implemented now. I didn't change anything in the lead though, which I'm leaving alone for a couple of days to see if anyone else is interested in working with it. Kablammo, please make the changes you suggested. They are good ones. Wtfiv (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Wtfiv I have been busy in real life, and have not been able to spend much time on this. That should change; I will try to make some edits the next few days and do more this weekend. Kablammo (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
A suggestion: There are over 30 uses of the word "would", including three sentences where it is used twice. Most are unnecessary. Kablammo (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kablammo I'm hoping these remain first draft artifacts, where the information was my primary focus was information and getting the citation/sources correct. Second draft was messy because it unintentionally morphed into a FAN-like process where I'm responding to editors' criticisms- particularly their concerns about my style- in an unfocused way, which takes the fun out of editing, is counterproductive for me, and makes things worse for all.
I'm working through the third draft right now in my own way. (Working backwards through sections.) I will definitely work on all those "woulds" as I go along. At the same time, though, please continue to feel free to make them yourself. (Though I don't always succeed, I try to respect the intention of other editors work even if I'm reworking a section myself, and it is always nice seeing an awkward phrase turned into lovely prose. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Lede

The lede is still too short. Should be four paragaphs - something like Ernest Hemingway's. HAL333 18:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wtfiv has posted to multiple places that the lead hasn't been reworked yet. Given the immense amount of work that's been going on here, without any discernible breaks, it's probably good to remind everyone that there's no deadline. No need to rush at all. It's much better to not to feel pressured while doing the work, than feeling there's a time limit. Which there isn't afaik. Victoria (tk) 20:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree 100.001% with Victoria on this. HAL, do something helpful or calm the fook down. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
There are no firm requirements on the length (however measured) of a lead; it should be as long as it needs to be, and no more.
My personal belief that the lead is the final stage of article writing. We may be there, or close to it, but active edits are continuing. Once again, there is no rush, and there is at least one major editor we hope to hear from. Kablammo (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Victoria, Ceoil, and Kablammo! I think I'm done with my major edits (Unless there is something big that I missed). I think the article addresses almost all the concerns, including the most recently added one in this section. I know there is probably more to do though (Let's hope they're relatively minor.) I'll probably continue to tinker with it. That seems endless. Wtfiv (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"Un ouvrage n’est jamais achevé, mais abandonné." Thank you for your efforts here, and best wishes. Kablammo (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Pictures for this article

I just put the picture of Joyce at six. It's at University of Buffalo and if it is Joyce, which it seems to be, he is age six. Which means the date of creation is circa 1886. By the criteria of the Hirtle chart, I think we're okay. If not, please delete again. More frustrating is the 1915 picture of Joyce by Alexander Ehrenzweig-Kantitza, who was active in Zurich between 1914-1927 as photographer. If we can find his lifespan, we may be able to use this one. There are two others, close to be ideal: A postcard he sent from Paris circa 1902, which needs one more year; and a picture with him and his friends, Byrne and Clancy, which may be as late as 1904, but may be from the University College days, which means it passes the Hirtle chart criteria too.

We can always write a fair use rationale if it's a problem. Victoria (tk) 22:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible images

  • Hi Wfiv here's a selection of images that are available, have something to do with Joyce, and are free. I need to be out for a few days so pasting in here for you or others to decide whether or not to use. Victoria (tk) 22:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC). repinging Wtfiv Victoria (tk) 22:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Victoria. I think your suggestion (via sandbox) to put in the bookstore was a great idea. As images are all in motion, I added this evening image here. It's a bit less busy with contemporary knicknacks and the darkness may be a bit moody. But please change it out with another you may prefer. Based on your comments, I put the flyer back in, which is a valuable historical document, and moving the Shakespeare and company image addresses SandyGeorgia's well-taken point that the Paris image was weak, though if a stronger one pops up. That would be great. As per your suggestion, I swapped out the Ulysses bookcover. The Egoist would have been perfect near 1914, but I'm not sure it is truly public domain as Dora Marsden died in 1960. If you see a place for the others that I missed, let me know, and if anything needs to be swapped out or removed, please do. Wtfiv (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

They're only suggestions, not a big deal. It's looking good. Victoria (tk) 21:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Joyce's Passport

I reverted a recent addition, a paragraph describing how Irish passports were treated and suggesting that this may be why Joyce may not have chosen to obtain a passport. The information about passports being confiscated is interesting and definitely belongs in a Wikipedia article. And it is possible that it could have played a role in Joyce's decision. But there is no accessible, reliable source citing evidence that this did impact Joyce's choice. The articles cited do not raise this point. Without such a citation, it would look more like original research. Wtfiv (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I fully endorse the removal. There was an addition speculating about Joyce's motives referenced by this that doesn't even mention Joyce, clearly unacceptable. FDW777 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I - Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC) - proposed the following text about James Joyce’s passport choice which has been reverted by User:Wtfiv:

Reverted edit concerning Joyce’s decision not to carry an Irish passport

Some argue that Joyce's politics is reflected in his attitude toward his British passport. He wrote about the negative effects of English occupation in Ireland and was sympathetic to the attempts of the Irish to free themselves from it.[1] In 1907, he expressed his support for the early Sinn Féin movement before Irish independence.[2] But throughout his life, Joyce refused to exchange his British passport for an Irish one.[3] When he had a choice, he opted to renew his British passport in 1935 instead of obtaining one from the Irish Free State,[4][a]
Alternatively, Joyce’s reluctance to carry an Irish passport may have been due to the limited recognition that United Kingdom authorities accorded the Irish passport in the 1920s and 30s. The British Government instructed its consular and passport officers everywhere that Irish Free State passports were not to be recognised if the holder was not described in the passport as a "British subject".[6] This led to considerable practical difficulty for Irish Free State citizens abroad, with many having to obtain British passports. The British consular officers would also confiscate the Irish Free State passports, a practice the Irish authorities regarded as "very humiliating".[6]

End of Reverted Text / Resumption of Discussion

I submit that anyone with common sense could see how the UK practice in the 1920s/1930s of refusing to recognize and, indeed, confiscating Irish passports could be relevant. Mr. Joyce was resident in Paris and visited London. Just how practical would an Irish passport have been? Wikipedia is the poorer for not including this relevant background. It assumes Joyce’s decision simply reflected his politics. Passports are practical things too. And an Irish passport was not always very practical in the era.
The view of the two other editors here is that this should be omitted because, although the facts are not disputed, the facts have not been written about by a secondary source in the context of Joyce. I am in a minority in disagreeing here with this narrow or selective interpretation of rules concerning secondary sources. End. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
No, per WP:NOR. You cannot use references that don't mention Joyce to construct a theory. FDW777 (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ de Sola Rodstein 1998, p. 155.
  2. ^ Gibson 2006, p. 82; Pelaschiar 1999, p. 64.
  3. ^ Davies 1982, p. 299.
  4. ^ Bowker 2012, p. 475.
  5. ^ Joyce 1966b, pp. 353–354: Letter to Georgio (Postscript to missing letter), about 10 April 1935
  6. ^ a b "Passports from Gearóid Ó Lochlainn to J.P. Walshe - 20 August 1927 - Documents on IRISH FOREIGN POLICY". Difp.ie. 1927-08-20. Archived from the original on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 2016-10-21.

On this (Blooms)day

There's still a week left to address the issues at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/June_16#What,_no_mention_of_Bloomsday? and rescue Bloomsday for the main page. Sparafucil (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

British?

Whatever the reasons the facts remain that carrying a British Passport he was a British subject willingly and therefore that he should be described as British and not Irish. Therefore the last edit should be undone. PaddyBasher (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Robert Burns was Scottish, Dylan Thomas was Welch, and Yeats, like Joyce, was Irish. British passports were carried by many residents of the British empire, and the polity listed on the passport does not govern. This change should not have been made without discussion.
Pinging @Victoriaearle, Ceoil, Wtfiv, and SandyGeorgia:, all recently-active editors. Kablammo (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
PaddyBasher's argument is unconvincing per Kablammo and all RS.[6] Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Have reversed the removal of the word "Irish" from the short description and lead sentence. Nationality and citizenship are not the same thing, and for context see [7] above. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC}
Note also, PaddyBasher has 11 edits, and should probably be blocked on Username grounds, although it is quite funny. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Danish

I don't know where to squeeze in this info, but thought it was notable enough to mention that he spoke Danish almost fluently.[8][9] Semsûrî (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Pound --> Savitzky --> Beach

Why on earth does this article not have no infobox when thousands of bios on other writers do?

I'll leave the template here and ask the questions if these details are not important, then why have infoboxes at all? What on earth is wrong with the mentality on this site that mob rule (aka consensus) makes arbitrary decisions about article style. Too much of a majority on this site only care first and foremost about what it all means to themselves. Do you think every reader - yes readers - it's not all about who wins the content wars, who might want find out basic things about somone ie like where they were born, married to, died, pen names, notaable works etc. They should not have to be forced to read the whole copy paste article to pick out random details.

If this site creates infoboxes, it creates them for a purpose. To not use them is hubris, nothing else.

Infobox writer

| embed = | honorific_prefix = | name = | honorific_suffix = | image = | image_size = | image_upright = | alt = | caption = | native_name = | native_name_lang = | pseudonym = | birth_name = | birth_date = | birth_place = | death_date = | death_place = | resting_place = | occupation = | language = | nationality = | citizenship = | education = | alma_mater = | period = | genre = | subject = | movement = | notable_works = | spouse = | partner = | children = | relatives = | awards = | signature = | signature_alt = | years_active = | module = | website = | portaldisp = 150.143.66.157 (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on this article is not to include an infobox. FDW777 (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
As this is already a Featured article, it's very unlikely to get one. Hubris? Maybe it's just hummus. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Because this was a hallmark article where an infobox was problematic, led to edit warring, and was used to shove in inaccurate information, as they often do. That Wikpedia has infoboxes, or any given feature or text, isn't always related to utility, rather who was persistent enough to edit war or able to accomplish a fait accompli. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and WP:INFOBOX. Another question is, why aren't we removing them on all the other articles, where they contain uncited inaccurate info? You can read about that on the two links I provide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see the ratio of box/ no box (of those where it's theoretically appropriate). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Medicine: 100% problematic. Information can't be conveyed in one line, and reducing it to that lacks nuance to the point of inaccuracy. But that discussion is for elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, all. In reviewing past edits and this talk page, it appears the infobox at one point was experiencing a large number of erroneous edits made in bad faith. It seems some have determined the best means of stopping such behavior is to remove the infobox altogether, citing "general consensus" among those interested in preserving the article's efficacy.
Is there a means of confirming/quantifying said consensus? It appears the question of whether or not to have an infobox is still being discussed (with at least a couple good-faith attempts to add an infobox occurring in the last few months).
From my perspective, the issue at hand is how best we manage the erroneous edits to the content within the infobox - removing the infobox altogether seems a ham-fisted way of solving that problem. The expectation is that all articles with enough quality info include the infobox feature - that an article for a subject such as James Joyce (one of the most highly-regarded authors of the 20th century) does not include an infobox, degrades the quality of the article.
Any of us taking time to make good-faith improvements to articles and talk pages should recognize that maintaining the integrity of some pages is more difficult than others - but to intentionally lower the standard of an article by removing content/features/etc. to make it easier for us to manage, should be discouraged outright. The effort required to remove viable content/features/etc. is equal to that of removing non-viable content/features/etc. - there's no reason we should continue wasting energy removing quality content in the hopes that it prevents theoretical low-quality content in the future. ComfyHarpy (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

More discussion: in the archives of this page.

Hi ComfyHarpy, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for taking an interest in this page. See the following threads re info box, here in 2009 it was decided not to have one, again in 2010, 2011, 2013, plus and RfC, and so on. Given the many times it's come up, particularly during the years when discussion of infoboxen was heated enough to end up at arbitration, we should probably be using the relevant WP:ACDS (discretionary sanctions) alerts i.e see, ({{subst:alert|cid}}), so that disputants are aware this has been, well, disputed on the project. That said, the consensus here is well established. In the meantime, there's no reason to replace before discussing. I'll revert the box and discussion can commence. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Adding, the box has been added three times in 24 hours by the same editor,diff, diff,diff. ComfyHarpy, please take a look at our instructions re edit warring, WP:EW. Edit warring is a bright line rule, important to learn as a new editor. Victoria (tk) 23:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @Victoriaearle! Thanks very much for providing links to those previous discussions. And apologies - to yourself, as well as the folks that have been working to maintain this page for some time - my intention is not to cause problems.
In general, articles with enough relevant content do include an infobox feature. To the degree that infobox metadata is used to improve accessibility (e.g.: e-readers) both on wikipedia.org and in sidebar search engine features leveraging wikipedia content. This functional aspect of the infobox feature was perhaps not as relevant when the previous discussions were taking place, but it sees wide use today and accessibility should be weighed more heavily when discussing the features and content to be included on article pages.
(fwiw, the content I added to the infobox most recently currently shows up in Google's sidebar search on my end - this content is likely to remain until Google refreshes it's cache for this wikipedia page, at which point, said content will likely no longer appear in Google's sidebar search. This is negatively impacts users that rely on accessibility tools to navigate the internet)
Functional accessibility reasons aside, that this article does not include an infobox makes it unique among articles of similar subject and size - an inconsistency that is wholly unnecessary. I've gathered that some dislike the infobox for personal reasons but utilizing a standard feature within wikipedia's guidelines is the default state of all articles - this one included. Removing an infobox that adheres to wikipedia guidelines is unnecessary and detrimental to the overall viability of the article itself.
For some reason, this article has attracted attention that overtime, has resulted in a lower-quality page. I've yet to see a viable, objective argument against including an infobox, especially considering the functional and contextual reasons for infobox inclusion that have evolved over the last decade.
Again: considering that past discussions relating to the infobox have gotten contentious, I want to reiterate that I'm not trying to add stress to anyone's life or start a fight or anything. I'd simply like to improve this article's viability.
p.s.: thanks for including the info regarding the the edit warning - I did not consider that my initial publication of the infobox might be considered a revision according to the 3RR. ComfyHarpy (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- infoboxes are not required - see MOS:INFOBOXUSE; "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox...is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." The Ezra Pound article does not have an infobox per consensus, nor does Kenneth Koch, Charles Reznikoff, Lorine Niedecker and many others - it's not unusual to have an article without an infobox. - Epinoia (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Here's a box for James Joyce. 10 full inches for £67 is a real bargain. But he's hard to put into a box, as he was one of those "stream of unconsciousnes" writers. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

For me, the lack of an infobox makes the article more difficult to read. For example, I have to search through the text to find important details, such as Joyce's date of birth or his number of children. This breaks the flow of the article more than a quick look at the infobox would. I'm not very knowledgable about Joyce and I haven't contributed to the article, but I thought it would be helpful for you to have the perspective of someone who is new to Joyce and just starting to learn more about his life and works. Thanks to everyone that's contributed to this excellent article. 130.123.3.123 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree that Giorgio and Lucia are a bit hidden. Giorgio is not considered notable anyway, (although his son Stephen James Joyce is), so he might not appear in any infobox anyway. There might be an argument for adding a "Family" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I mistakenly added an infobox after I searched for Joyce and noticed that Brave search infobox which pulls up data from the Wikipedia infobox was missing. I mostly use the Wikipedia infobox to quickly look up information especially dates. DEFCON5 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there any objective reason or formal requirement that we can’t put in an infobox?

For me the lack of an infobox is tedious, bordering on pretentious (is the article somehow too “good” for an infobox, which I’m aware is inexplicably considered childish by some people?) and brings down the article quality and usefulness. Can we please just put one in as is standard in the vast majority of biographies? Throwing it out because people put false info in it is a textbook case of Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater. People watch major articles obsessively, it’s unlikely that fake or bad info wouldn’t get caught. Dronebogus (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed before, at the top of this page and the three prior archives. Please review those. Kablammo (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I have and I didn’t see much consensus. In fact a few users made good points in favor of an infobox. Dronebogus (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Joyce/Archive_3&oldid=1210732367"