Talk:George Bernard Shaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Bernard Shaw article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article George Bernard Shaw has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

This article is part of WikiProject Irish literature. See that page for further information.

Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Islam

I removed a quotes section that someone tacked on. I have a feeling someone is going to get unnecessarily hostile about this (see the second bullet), so let me give more elaborate reasons:

[*]Quotes sections suck. Use Wikiquote. I've always felt this, but I haven't found official documentation, even though I'm positive the Wiki community feels the same way. Could someone point me to an article in Metawiki that says this? If there is no policy, I'll certainly leave future quotes sections be in the future. Except this one, which brings me to the next reason...

[*]Shaw lived more than 90 years, wrote dozens of plays, spoke uncountable words. This quotes section has three quotes, all advocating Islam. That's quite a bias. Now, there's nothing wrong with Islam, I promise! But this is not the way to be selective in quotes. I'd be just as firm on an article on C. S. Lewis that contained only quotes advocating Christianity, or an article about Mel Gibson that listed his craziest antisemetic one-liners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamguy (talk • contribs) 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The quotations favoring Islam have been posted in the GBS article before and can be found in a plethora of Islamic webpages, e.g. [1]. Sometimes, there is a supporting reference, "Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8 (Singapore: 1936)". I have spent time searching for it, with no success at all, and suspect it is fictitious. Shaw was never knighted.Wugo 00:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The Lee Kong Chian Reference Library in Singapore archives The Genuine Islam. Jane Wee, their Reference Librarian, tells me "I ran through the Vol. 1, No. 8 (Aug 1936) issue and one issue before and after that but do not find any article by Sir George Bernard Shaw."Wugo 15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaw's Poems

I removed the Poems section because it contained only one unreferenced verse: Living Graves. The poem appears at [2]. I'm not sure Shaw wrote it; it falls well below his standard. Wugo (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaw's Novels

Having really read all five of his novels, I decided to add summaries of them to this article because information regarding them is, elsewhere, sparse. Please look my writing over for errors in syntax and spelling; I'm sure you'll find a lot of them.Wugo (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I've always been a fan of Shaw's plays, so it really delights me to see this article in such great shape. As for the Good Article Criteria, it is generally well written and it follows a majority of the formatting and MOS guidelines. Of course it is also stable, neutral (to a point; see referencing concerns) and well illustrated with correctly tagged images. There are several key issues, however, especially in regards to sourcing, that I feel should be taken care of (or at least addressed and discussed) before it passes. I'll start with the small, nitpicky items and graduate to the hard hitting ones. :)

  • (July 26, 1856—November 2, 1950): this should be an en dash and not an em dash (per WP:DASH). That goes for the date ranges such as those in the "Biography" section.
  • ''a world-famous Irish playwright: I could see this phrase bothering those who are sensitive to POV. Saying that Shaw is world famous is different than saying he is considered to be one of the greatest playwrights and then citing a reliable, scholarly source, for example; perhaps this can be reworded to fend off the naysayers. See below re: verification.
  • Watch out for poetic, flowery prose ("leavened by a vein of comedy" and "his ire was most aroused") and run-on sentences. The third "paragraph" in the lead, for example, is one sentence long. These issues can be fixed with a copy-editor or through Peer Review.
  • The "Biography" section is very short considering that the man lived 94 years, perhaps because several aspects of Shaw's life, "Friends and correspondents" and "Socialism and political beliefs", come much later in the article. Perhaps this should be expanded and/or reorganized? It seems disjointed as it is now.
  • More interwiki links are needed. Dublin, for example, is not linked in the lead or when it first appears in the body of the article.
  • The Black Girl in Search of God and Some Lesser Tales (London, Penguin, 1934).: this is not a sentence, nor is it a bullet point, and the next sentence begins abruptly. I suggest re-writing this to prose.
  • Formatting issues with the references and with the works in the "Bibliography" section: some books are italicized and some are in quotation marks; consistency is needed. Refs 9 and 12 in particular need to be formatted correctly, and punctuation and capitalization is off in some places: ref 22 is all in italics, for example. It would help to use citation templates in these instances.
  • Beginning with "Novels" there is a great lack of sources that must be fixed in order for the article to be completely verifiable. Plot details are easy to source because you can always use the works themselves or critical essays pertaining to the works, but assertions such as "With the exception of Oscar Wilde, the humor in Shaw's writing was unmatched by his contemporaries, and he is remembered for his comedy" must be sourced. There are nearly fifteen entire paragraphs in the entire article that do not include even one inline citation. Which brings me to...
  • It's a shame that this, being an article dedicated to such an important literary figure, relies entirely on non-scholarly sources. Although what information is referenced seems to be reliable, not one of the books from the "Bibliography" are used as refs. If you plan to take this article to FAC, I hope that some scholarly research will be undertaken.
  • Per WP:EL: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." This poses some problems with the "Works available online" section which relies heavily on links to Gutenberg. Here's what I suggest: rename section to "Works", remove all of the external links, keeping it as a list of Shaw's notable works, and add a link to George Bernard Shaw at the Gutenberg Project in the "External links" section.

To recap, here are the biggies: expand, reorganize and/or refactor biography for easier reading, remove external links from prose and rename "Works available online" section, and, more important than the others, research and reference. The article cannot fulfill the second criteria to become a Good Article if it cannot provide "in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". A thorough copy-edit at this stage could not hurt since there are some issues with the prose; I would be willing to look through it if need be. I also highly recommend looking into some of the works listed in the "Bibliography" section for a more scholarly outlook on the subject, but again, I'm an English major, I'm supposed to say that. :)

I'm putting the article on hold for the time being in order for improvements to be made. Best of luck on further work and please do let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding the article or the review. María (habla conmigo) 19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the proposed changes that I fully understand have merit. For others I will need further explanation. I'll ask for explanations when I address the changes. I'll begin by providing sources more palatable to scholars. However, I'm eager to preserve the external linkages to the sources I have cited: they will be useful to the ordinary readers who have no access the great libraries that academicians take for granted.
I did not anticipate such an extensive overhaul, although I welcome it. Previous commitments will keep me from providing it in the time alloted. Can the deadline be moved forward by at least two weeks? Wugo (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course; take all the time you need. I've mostly completed the copy-edit and formatting sweep, but I'll have another look for things I've missed. The external links in the references are necessary for online sources, so don't remove those; I was only referring to the ELs in the prose of the article ("Works available online" section) that need removing per WP:EL. I have the article watchlisted so I can keep an eye out for your questions. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked carefully at your revisions yet (although, of course I will), but what I've seen meet my unqualified approval. Thanks!

I need some guidance now: I want to replace reference #6 "Collection Inventory" with something more specific. Please change it for me to The History of the Fabian Society, Pease, Edward R., IndyPublish.com (2006) ISBN-13: 9781847024336 and add http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/3/7/1/13715/13715.htm as the e-text source. I want to use your entry as a model for rendering the other references academically acceptable. Wugo (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia:Citation templates for a guide; it's so much easier to obtain standardization with templates, but many prefer different formatting. Whatever works, as long as it's consistent. If you want to continue using templates, however, just remove the fields that aren't being used and/or add the ones that are needed. In this case you could copy and paste the following:
<ref name="pease">{{cite book |last=Pease |first=Edward R. |coauthors=Paavo Cajander (trans.) |title=The History of the Fabian Society |year=2004 |publisher=Project Gutenberg | url=http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/3/7/1/13715/13715.htm | accessdate=2008-03-30}}</ref>
You can see that I've changed some of the info you wrote; that is because when you provide a link you are saying that you used that link as the source. That means that the publisher, year, coauthors, etc, must match what the URL says in order for it to be verifiable. So I changed the publisher and year because they need to match the info given for the URL you supply, which is Project Gutenberg and 2004. There is also no ISBN included at Gutenberg, but the addition of a translator. The new ref would look like this:[1]
  1. ^ Pease, Edward R.; Paavo Cajander (trans.) (2004). The History of the Fabian Society. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved on 2008-03-30. 

Wonderful! It worked. Gutenberg cites E.P. DUTTON & COMPANY as publisher. That would be the 1916 edition, scarcer than canary fangs. Will the ref, as you have given it, stand up to academic scrutiny? 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Canary fangs", I like that. :) Citing Gutenberg is fine and dandy since they in turn note where they got their version from. It's quite reliable as far as internet sources go. Be careful with the self-published sites, however, and I left an internal note for ref 32; the link appears to be dead, so a replacement is needed. María (habla conmigo) 00:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean Ref 33: Public Trustee. The rascals have reorganized the service and given it a new URL—http://www.courtfunds.gov.uk/ I changed the URL and deleted your note before I tried to use the URL to get Shaw-specific information. No luck. I'll have to find a secondary reference or retract the statement. I apologize for the premature deletion of your internal note. Wugo (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, 33; sorry about that. The hidden comment is still there, however, as is the broken link. A secondary ref would be great. María (habla conmigo) 12:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've supplied a respectable reference (#37, last time I looked) for the remark about the Shavian alphabet. Your hidden comment remains in place to provide a marker. To my considerable surprise, Holroyd avoids serious discussion of Shaw's will—He barely mentions it on p. 500, Vol. III of his big biography. Wugo (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving?

On a side note, this page is currently at 64 kb. Perhaps an archive is needed? María (habla conmigo) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the article is growing long and have been concerned about it. If archiving will help without reducing useful content, I hope you will perform it. I'll not attempt the deed myself because I have no notion how its done and do not understand its implications. Wugo (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to the talk page, which someone archived soon after I posed the question above. Articles themselves cannot be archived, just cut down extensively. :) The length of this one is not bad, however, so don't worry about it just yet. María (habla conmigo) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics

I undid Wugo's undo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Bernard_Shaw&diff=200471215&oldid=199743281

of the Eugenics paragraph I added back in February. He cites the section as, "Derogatory statement; refs unverifiable and apparently fictitious)". The references were:

  • The preface to "On The Rocks"
  • Shaw, George Bernard. Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910
  • "Prefaces" by George Bernard Shaw
  • Nightingale, Benedict. George Bernard Shaw - and a Lesson in Evil. Times Newspapers, Ltd. August 29, 2000.

The last is available online, "Prefaces" is shown here:

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/s/george-bernard-shaw/prefaces-by-bernard-shaw.htm

(only showing it exists) which, along with "On The Rocks", can be checked out at a large library. The report from The Daily Express would have to be researched locally, I believe, though the work is cited elsewhere on the web. I'm haven't dealt with this before - does Wikipedia ever demand photocopy and upload of the relevant references from original material? I have borrowing privileges at a large university library so I could do it if required. What's the mechanism here? I know reverts aren't supposed to be done without a Talk first, so we're already off on a shaky start.

Additionally, I endeavored to deal only in statements made by Shaw himself, so 'derogatory' is surprising, though I can certainly see how some people wouldn't want the positions well-known about Shaw. If it should be better worded, improve, but this article should be NPOV. Even if there were significant disagreement about his position, that so many think of Shaw as a eugenicist, the topic should at least be covered. Certainly without a section in this article, readers would come away without understanding where the term 'Shavian eugenics' came from (e.g.:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17702503

)

Finally, "apparently fictitious" is quite a broad brush and violates the primary "assume good faith" directive, so I have to ask for a rational basis for that assertion. Is there verifiable research that contradicts the body of work examining Shavian eugenics? Please make the case if that's so, the last thing I'd want to do would be to add something that wasn't true, not being one to enjoy being duped. BillMcGonigle (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You do not need to upload sources, but it is important that everything is verifiable; full publication details are necessary and links from reliable sources are a plus. In my opinion, I think that the bulk of the information you added to the article gives undue weight to one specific issue and may violate neutral point of view policy. I see no problem with keeping the fact that he was a supporter of eugenics in the article (that seems indisputable), and I have no wish at all to sugarcoat things, but surely one entire paragraph, that basically repeats itself with several different quotes, is overkill. Perhaps you can cut down the information to its bare necessities and integrate it somewhere within the body? Wugo would be the best judge for where to put it. My concern is that the article is currently undergoing a review to become a Good Article and therefore its quality and POV is important. María (habla conmigo) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In saying "apparently fictitious" I meant that, after diligent searching, I found no evidence the articles you quote actually exist. Benedict Nightengale is a living author, but the title you cite is not included in the listings of his works. (By the way: What and where is Times Newspapers, Ltd. ?) I have several comprehensive listings of works by Shaw, but none mention Prefaces. Where did you find the book and who was its publisher? Is there really a newspaper called The Daily Express? If so, did you see the report you mention? You are on better ground with On the Rocks; that's real enough. But I own a a copy of that play, complete with preface, and find nothing in the contents to justify your statements.
If it is possible for you to verify the credibility of your sources it will make your contribution easier to accept, both for me and all the other editors. Wugo (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing problem

In the section on Shaw's Polemical Writing I have this statement: Shaw joined in the public's unreasoning attack on vaccination against smallpox,[1] a dire disease that nearly killed him when he contracted it in 1881.

It used to display normally but now it doesn't show at all, although it can be read by opening the section up for editing. Have I set off some automatic censor? If so, what was the trigger? Wugo (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cancel! All is well; now it shows. I had mutilated all references beyond #34 by failing to close with </ref> Wugo (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Man, I do that all the time! María (habla conmigo) 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
'Tis cursed, we are. I have similar results when I try to fry an egg. Wugo (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN status

This is coming along nicely. It's very close to fulfilling the verifiability criteria. Two blockquotes in the "Plays" section still need citations, as well as the last two paragraphs in "Legacy". It's been on hold for more than a week now, but as long as you're working, it's cool. :) It looks about ready to pass, though; you can save the above suggestions about expansion and re-organization regarding Shaw's biography for later if that helps; as long at the information is there (which it is), the article is broad in scope enough for Good Article status. Great work! María (habla conmigo) 11:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You bring welcome news, María! I've supplied the citations specified except for one to support "Shaw's Museum in Dublin." There are links for it aplenty but their tone is too commercial for my taste. I've deleted that entire comment and will restore it only when I find a suitable supporting source. I hope to defer expanding the biography until after Good Article status has been granted because it may take a month or more to get the material assembled and well ordered. Wugo (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the biography undertaking may turn out to be epic in scope, but it would be welcome. I had to do something similar with Emily Dickinson after it passed GAN, only it was the other way around: I had to expand and reconfigure (with the help of another editor, of course, I never could have done it alone) everything that came after the Bio. Yeesh.
After a little cleaning up and the addition of citations, I think this article has vastly improved and now fulfills the GA criteria. Congrats! It is well on its path to bigger and better things: keep working on it, maybe go for a Peer Review when you're ready, and hopefully I'll see this listed at FAC one day. If you need any help with silly MOS stuff, a future review, or just someone to sniff out those unclosed ref-tags, you know where to find me. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

María, I became so interested in Emily Dickinson that I nearly forgot to gloat about the GA approval! If GBS is ever featured, it will be because of the example set by you with Emily. By the by, your way of dealing with the references in that article is one I plan to mimic. I'll start working on Bernard's bio now but, concurrently, will be adding to the list of Works and augmenting it with publication data. Your offer of future help is, herewith, gratefully accepted. Hasta luego, Wugo (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mimic away; it's wonderfully easy and helpful if you wish to use multiple citations from one book, and best of all, no citation templates! You're very welcome for the help. But now you have me hooked, of course, and I'm looking forward to seeing this article grow. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish?

Yes, he was Irish in that he was born in Ireland. But he wasn't Irish in the modern sense of the term. Ireland was still part of the UK when he was born there so his passport (if he had one) would probably say that he was British -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)