Talk:J. R. Ackerley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in London may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Comment

_TOC_ I revised the blurb about My Father and Myself because it was not quite accurate. The book is not an autobiography of either Ackerley or his father. It's Ackerley's own selective musings about his father and himself, with deftly written passages on his brother, mother, and others. Not only is the book more accurately described as memoir, the claim that Ackerley "discovered that his father had had a number of gay relationships, including one with the wealthy Count de Gallatin" is false. Ackerley suggests a relationship may have commenced between the two; however, he is ultimately unable to verify this possibility. (See pages 261-262 of the book as published by New York Review Book Classics.) Also, it seems most helpful to tell folks not only what the "J" stands for in Ackerley's full name, but the "R" as well. I was unable to verify whether the author's full "legal" name was "Joe Ackerley", though I performed an electronic search of the full text of the book using various keywords and nothing definitive came up. In any case, I deleted the word "legal" as I feel the identity of the initials is of more importance in the introductory matter of an encyclopedic entry, than the specificity of whatever the author's legal name was. 68.160.193.57 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I was wrong about where I got the information about Ackerley's legal name. It could have come from the Parker biography (though why I would trust Parker I don't know) or from My Sister and Myself. Aha! It could be in Braybrooke. I'll look for it. Thanks for correcting the description of My Father and Myself. Don't know why it never occurred to me to correct it – maybe because there was a lot of wrangling over that section at the time it got added. I do think a man's name is relevant to him, though. John FitzGerald 16:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely, John. I didn't mean to imply that Ackerley's legal name was not of importance. One of the great qualities of this resource is the freedom to mention unique facts that one might have to dig for in longer texts elsewhere -- like the Tulip/Queenie controversy. I removed the word "legal" to justify including the middle name, but feel that if it could be verified he was known as "Joe Ackerley" in the legal sense (and that Randolph was added as a tribute to his uncle), adding such a note would be a fascinating contribution to everyone's understanding of the man.
I think I was just being a smartass there. I couldn't find any reference in Braybrooke, so I'll have to get my hands on a copy of Parker. What's most important, and what I'm grateful for, is that you corrected the misinformation about Count de Gallatin and Roger Ackerley's supposed other gay relationships. John FitzGerald 17:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Some sources give 1965 as the date for My Dog Tulip, including the copyright notice in my American edition. However, Ackerley's letters (ed. Neville Braybrooke) make it clear the book was published in 1956.Jfitzg

Hephaestos -- According to Ackerley in My Father and Myself, his full legal name was Joe Ackerley, so I changed it back. If you've got evidence to the contrary from Somerset House or some similar source change the name back and please let me know about it.Jfitzg

I was quoting a source from the University of Tulsa [1] - Hephaestos
Well, the R stands for Randolph, but according to Ackerley he added it as a tribute to his uncle Randolph. On the other hand, he never seems to have anything nice to say about Uncle Randolph. Maybe we could get a grant to unearth the true story.Jfitzg
Heh, maybe so.  :-) When in doubt, though, best to leave as-is. Thanks for the info. - Hephaestos

[edit] Schools

I moved the following from the article to here, where it seems more appropriate:

[clarification needed; in the UK preparatory schools and public schools are two different things]

I'm looking into this and into the question of Ackerley's legal name.

[edit] Name/school

Peter Parker states that Ackerley's name was registered as Joe Ackerly in his biography. Ackerley's prep and public schools were the same school -- Rossall. John FitzGerald 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age at enlistment

This question about Ackerley's age when he enlisted was inserted in the text, so I moved it here:

[could someone chefck this, please, as Ackerley would have stopped being 16 on 3 Nov 1913, according to the date of birth above, which is nearly a year before World War I started?]

And I removed the obviously incorrect assertion about his age; I intend to include the year of enlistment once I get my hands on the parker biography again. John FitzGerald 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging the article

About the only difference between this article and the one which is supposed to be merged with it is that the other article claims that My Father and Myself was a fantasy. Well, I could believe that, but before the assertion goes in the article some evidence of it should be provided. Whatever happens, the other article should become the redirect because this article is better wikified and has a correctly punctuated title. John FitzGerald 11:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Italic text

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mydogtulip.jpg

Image:Mydogtulip.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)