This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
For reference, the three sources listed in the 2004 featured version were:
From pre-revert to 2006 version:
'Why are you so afraid of thunder?' asked [Arthur] Power, 'your children don't mind it.' 'Ah,' said Joyce contemptuously, 'they have no religion.' Joyce's fears were part of his identity, and he had no wish, even if he had had the power, to slough any of them off.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Yes: who is McCourt? The citation needs to have a full reference, not just a last name. Currently, this citation has no validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.26.208 ( talk) 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
We have one painting, and five sculptures. Commons has a photograph (in two versions) and a drawing. There should be more balance. Kablammo ( talk) 00:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The article, even as it stands after pruning and extensive citation work, does not meet FA standards, particulary in the areas of critical reception and the author's influence. The Legacy section is not comprehensive; in fact it barely scratches the surface (and, despite recent improvements, still has some of the attributes of a coatrack). It may be best to establish a separate sandbox page for this section, and revamp it in a more deliberative fashion than a rush to bring it up to FA standards immediately and thereby avoid an FAR (if that in fact is where this is going). The remaining defects in other sections of the article can be done in the usual fashion, by direct editing. Kablammo ( talk) 13:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted a global change of George -> Giorgio. This, perhaps, needs discussion. The tombstone in the photograph says "George," so at least the photo description should not change. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Of his contemporaries, he looked much like Eamonn De Valera, but at the same time he did not. Anything else to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.45( talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The biographical sections could give a better sense of the man, his personality and (often erratic) working methods, as well as some more of his influences both literary - he was well grounded in both the English and French canon - ontop of the the straight narrative of his travels.
If neccessary, the sections on Ulysses and Finnegans Wake can be shortened to make way for this since they already have good articles of their own. Ktlynch ( talk) 13:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that old picture at the beggining of article is more known and more representative. (this one is good to) -- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering is Joyce much known beyond the English-speaking world? I was speaking with a number of Arabic speakers today and they had never heard of him. I'm not a fan of his really, really long sentences but I had thought he was well known beyond the English-speaking world? 109.78.46.48 ( talk) 19:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Since Joyce is part of the italian high school program and my high school was named after him i would say that he's known in italy. (please excuse my terrible english). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambaldo ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
He certainly would be known in countries in Europe outside the United Kingdom - after all, he lived part of his life in France, Switzerland and Italy. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Why has the article no infobox? {{ Infobox writer}} exists.-- Oneiros ( talk) 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's gauge current consensus of who supports or opposes inclusion of an Infobox. Yworo ( talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, look at all the snow. It's like an early Christmas...for Infobox haters. My bad, I didn't realize how much some editors disliked them for certain articles. Please forgive the disruption and return to your regularly scheduled programming. Yworo ( talk) 02:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
He is an agnostic, ¿isn´t he?, ergo he is not a roman catholic writer. Don´t start again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.140.204 ( talk) 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ellmann in his biography (citation needed) emphasises that while he was very obviously and militantly against the Church, probably against God, and a self-described Socialist and Anarchist in certain stages of his life, he not a self-described atheist. As the page already says, when asked when did he leave the Church, he replied that "It is for the Church to say." Also Gogarty referred to him as a "fearful jesuit" which made into the text of Ulysses (spoken by Mulligan in the first chapter afaik). The basis of that claim -- as he explains -- is that Joyce attacked the Church in the same methodological manner which he learned from the monks during his school years, a general attitude that really describes aspects of his work and method, if not his conduct. So the question is becoming more pressing here: what does it mean to be a "catholic writer"? Is it about the identity of the writer or the motives in the work? Is it enough to write a lot about how bad is the Catholic Church to become a Catholic Writer? Maxigas ( talk) 21:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Categories says "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category". I think that makes it fairly clear. Joyce's clear Catholicism is neither self-evident nor uncontroversial. In the on-going discussions around other Catholic categories of late, such as Category talk:American Roman Catholics, the distinguishing features used to determine 'Catholicism' are well-sourced clear and public self-identification and on-going religious practice as an adult. This is based on WP:BLPCAT guidelines but holds for deceased biographies also. I would say, yes, continue the discussion about finding a more specific category that more accurately describes Joyce, a description which is non-controversial and self-evident. The problem with "Writers influenced by Catholicism" is as Catholicism was Christianity up until 1520-ish and religion influenced pretty much all writing in Europe, all European writers before that date could be reasonably included in the cat. But I am happy to explore that line of enquiry with you. Span ( talk) 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I´m sorry! I did not realize that I had deleted the comment of Mamalujo. It was a mistake by copying and pasting, you know. Anyway I dont understand why you has deleted my contribution. Is this the english wikipedia?-- Sürrell ( talk) 18:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the best approach (as noted above) is to remove the "Catholic writers" category and find one more specific that is "self-evident and uncontroversial". Can we move forward with that? Span ( talk) 08:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
New Interuption-So what you are saying is that if I ,a dedicated and important Russian communist spend my entire life analysing the Roman Catholic church and criticing and denouncing it in every way possible-having a mind saturated with anti catholic hate-then I am to be classed as a Catholic or Roman Catholic writer? Its rather like suggesting that Himmler was Jew- after all he was obssessed with them !(end of interuption) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.11.150 ( talk) 08:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree (at least partly) with Mamalujo (and others) on two points. I didn't say that what sources say doesn't matter. But it matters only to the extent that it informs those of us in this discussion (or similar discussions) who make decisions here by consensus. Again, critics or what they write don't determine how a category is defined; we do. To say that "what we think as editors ... is largely beside the point" is inaccurate. Second point: Joyce's mind may be "saturated with catholica", which would define him as a writer about (or influenced by) Catholicism. Joyce's self-identification as a Roman Catholic would define him as a Roman Catholic. Those two facts are not interchangeable. Let me speak hypothetically. Writer X can be a Roman Catholic who attends Mass every day, but has never written a word about Catholicism. Writer Y can be an atheist (or a Muslim, or a Jew) who has written extensively about Catholicism. Those two people do not necessarily belong in the same category. I prefer that readers (Remember readers? That's who we are writing this encyclopedia for.) have some idea about what they will find when they see the title of a category (and then maybe read further to the category description). If I'm interested interested in what writers have to say about Catholicism and I'm a naive reader, I don't want to go to a category entitled "Roman Catholic writers" and discover (after wasting a lot of time) that most of them are Catholics but have never written anything about Catholicism. So, as I've said, I prefer to differentiate between categorizing a writer as a practicing Catholic and a writer who can inform me about Catholicism. Cresix ( talk) 21:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this is the very place for discussing the Catholic categories. Many of them are in a vague, confused and useless state. Who will clear them up if not editors such as us? Whether Graham Greene or Joyce should be categorised as Catholics are good questions that need exploring. The cats are only as useful as the articles listed under them. Span ( talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Mamalujo, you have missed my point. Please re-read my comments above. If Graham Greene writes about Catholicism, he could be included in a category "Writers Influenced by Catholicism" regardless of whether he never went to Mass or went to Mass three times a day. Anyone who writes about Catholicism, regardless of their personal beliefs, could be included in that category. Far from being impractical, it is one of the most practicel things we can do for readers (again, remember readers?) who want to find articles about those who write about Catholicism. Cresix ( talk) 01:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought that the best way to describe Joyce's religion was that of a lapsed Catholic. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm reading Joyce, Chaos and Complexity, it states it was his weakest subject, although he had a taste for Geometry, which can be seen in theIthica episode of Ulysses and the night lessons chapter of Finnegans Wake. He determinedly studied it to win an exhibition, though. Should this be incorporated somehow, or is it unnoteworthy? I haven't read the whole book yet.-- occono ( talk) 00:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think it is notable? I think in an encyclopedia article it is not worth mentioning, although I see how it is an interesting fact in such a book that you are reading. Maxigas ( talk) 01:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't understand what it doesn't have infobox. Every writer article does have it — Taro-Gabunia ( talk) 10:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering about this as well. The fact is the influences/influenced section would be pretty helpful, and it would certainly add a conclusive sense of his place in the literary canon (a pivotal one) to the article. Having checked, I know that many of those Joyce considered vital influences aren't noted as such in this article, or given significant weight at least, and even more of the writers who were influenced by him go unmentioned. Pound should probably also have an infobox for this reason, given his diverse tastes, but he's a less significant literary figure allover. Guys, this could be very helpful. Maybe it's not necessary for Shakespeare to have one of these, but more recent authors should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.97.38 ( talk) 13:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be made more explicit in the section dedicated to his legacy, stature, and influence? I'm fully aware of his importance, but I don't feel you really get a sense of it here. It's the same with Faulkner (if not worse). You'd think Hemingway was more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.97.38 ( talk) 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This article in its early stages describes Joyce as an Irish writer, but should it not point out that he liked to see himself as a European artist? Also, wasn't it the upset he had about his sister's health that some believe contributed to his relatively early death? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The first part of what you must be qualified, however, as Joyce wrote in a multi-lingual language as in Finnegans Wake and lived quite a lot of his adult life outside Ireland. The book where I read about the death of his sister was a book with a title such as "Makers of the Twentieth Century" - I read it back in the 1980s, so I cannot remember the full title now! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I did not know about his knowledge of the Asian languages, but he could not speak them fluently. I believe that there were not all that many languages which he did speak fluently - the ones he did were English, Latin, French, German, Italian, Irish and Norwegian so that he could read Henrik Ibsen in the original - he did not really know vast amounts of languages besides that, but he did have smatterings of many other languages. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
*Support as a nomintor I think this article should have infobox — 178.134.63.228 ( talk) 11:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read the Talk page and its archives. We've had this discussion many, many times. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
... and twist it. You can misuse and abuse it, but even God cannot change the Truth. I think I understand the problem. Will you please think about it: Joyce is no more or less Irish for being more or less Catholic. In his blessed memory, please, do not lie any more. Read his letter to Nora of August 29, 1904. -- 85.53.140.23 ( talk) 09:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paul II, G. K. Chesterton were all Catholic people or writers. They believed in their God and in the Catholic Church, and in their work and views it was clear, it was explicit. They constantly claimed to be Catholic. They do not conceal it. So the category in English Wikipedia doesn’t lie on them. However, Wikipedia lies in the case of Joyce, who resigned to Catholicism at age 16, which is demonstrated continuously by his actions and his writings. (No fear. Cfr. Article in Spanish.) Joyce did not believe in the church, Joyce did not love God, Joyce continually ridiculed priests and religion. I'm so afraid you have not read Joyce. Just you dare, copy here the letter to Nora of August 19, 1904. Scholars who you say, these Strong, Kenner, Noon, Boyle, merely present their views. If I were Catholic I do not hide it. I´m proud of it. And you? Do you hide? Proud? If Joyce were a Catholic, was well hidden. If this subjet isn´t safe, if you can´t prove, the best thing you can do is remove the category. Neither Catholic nor Atheist. If you keep the category, you are lying to the world about James Joyce, an Irish writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.137.218 ( talk) 17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC) -- 85.53.137.218 ( talk) 17:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
1. It’s you who see the matter of one colour. Unclear is the matter for you, of course. Not for me.
2. Brenda Maddox, William York Tindall…? I have the testimony of: James Joyce, Stanislaus Joyce, Richard Ellmann, Harold Bloom, Nora Barnacle... Please, don’t laugh at me.
3. Have you really read Ulysses, Finnegans? I doubt it so much. I want the text of the letter, haven’t it in English. Just you dare. "That is for the Church to say": Ha, ha. What does it mean? Please! Joyce was a great joker and thought precisely about you.
4. “Even those who see Joyce as a lifelong apostate commonly refer to him as a Catholic author”, “a Catholic, however heretical". Oh, yeah?
"Someone that left the church but whose notability was tied closely with the religion fell under the definition of the category"? Don't you really see? Then Augustine of Hippo is included in the category of perverts and Lucifer among angels. Gross, scandalous fallacy.
Sorry: This use of categories “absolutely mislead the interested reader”. Suposse I am a german writer born in 1917, Heinrich Böll. In 1945 I am somehow highly influenced by the knowledge of horrors of Nazism, but this doesn’t make me a nazi. Yes? If you say I am a Nazi writer, you’re lying about me. But you don't lie if you say I'm a Catholic writer. It is not difficult to understand.
“Roman Catholic writer (in the sense of "highly influenced by the church")”: Highly influenced is only “influenced”. V. gr. I am strongly influenced by Renaissance, but I am a cubist! Don’t lie on me to the people that doesn’t understand that subtleties! Therefore, if you say James Joyce is in the category “Roman Catholic writer”, you are lying about James Joyce, an Irish writer in foreign parts, still, always still! Please, respect his blessed memory and the "misleaded interested reader". Remove the category or I do.-- 85.53.146.79 ( talk) 10:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't call you liar. Excuse me, is a very delicate matter. Wikipedia cannot call white to black. W. must respect the memory of personalities. W. should not confuse people, especially if people is of low or medium culture. Neither Catholic nor Atheist. See the German wik. We are tired of such religious manipulations. This is it and nothing more. Any major dude will tell you ( Steely Dan). Thank you very much for remove the wrong categorie. Kh.-- 85.53.129.217 ( talk) 17:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised there's zilch about his letters in this article (other than the sterile mentions in the lists of publications).
I was going to add a note about the letters which were burnt, such as the letters Joyce sent to his brother Charlie (the zealously Catholic wife of Joyce’s brother Charlie forbade him from her house and forbade her son any further contact with his immoral uncle. She threw Charlie’s copy of An Exagmination Round his Factification for Incamination of Work in Progress, a book of essays on Finnegans Wake , on to the fire and later destroyed all his brother’s letters and signed copies of his various books. [4]).
There's also something to say about the letters burnt by his grandson Stephen Joyce, but I haven't found the full story there. Gronky ( talk) 17:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Since this has popped up again, and I'm re-reading Ellmann's biography, it might be worth noting that he refers to GJ as Giorgio until 1923; then he notes (p. 556) that he "now preferred to be called" George. References after this point call him George. So my position would be:
- both forms are fine. In an article on JJ, which form of GJ's name to use is utterly trivial.
- it would be a good idea to mention both forms either at first mention, or around 1923, if GJ is mentioned thereabouts.
- choosing one form and sticking with it, or using Ellmann's strategy and switching around 1923, would both be reasonable.
Henry Flower 07:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the Legacy section is devoted to the dispute with Joyce's grandson over use of letters and other materials in the literary estate. This dispute is given undue weight here. It need not be addressed at all in this article, as it does not inform us on Joyce's life or work. The dispute is already covered in the separate article on Stephen J. Joyce, and the expiration of copyright has made more of these materials availble for use. I therefore propose to remove the last paragraph of the Legacy section, dealing with the dispute. Kablammo ( talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Peter Costello, in James Joyce: the years of growth, 1892-1915 gives his name as James Augustine Joyce, for his paternal grandfather, Costello (1992) p. 53, and the Birth and Baptismal Certificate reproduced in the article also shows "Augustine". Ellman says: "The second child, James Augusta (as the birth was incorrectly registered) . . .". Ellmann (1982) p. 21. Should not we use the intended and baptismal middle name of "Augustine"? Kablammo ( talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps changing "occasional journalism" in the last sentence of the first paragraph to "occasional criticism". In its last edit summary, the IP made its first explanation:
I disagree, as did Joyce himself. Kevin Barry writes in the introduction to Joyce's Occasional, Critical, and Political Writing (Oxford, 2000):
— Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Joyce's Dublin – slideshow by Life magazine
Why is "The Cats of Copenhagen" included as one of the works of Joyce in the Template? That seems entirely misguided. "Cats" is a throwaway piece of writing, a whimsical letter to a child, that only achieved independence when it was published in 2012. If "Cats" is one of the works, why not "The Cat and the Devil"? Indeed, why not Danis Rose's "Finn's Hotel"? Rc65 ( talk) 04:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that the translation for the quotation 'Il lupo perde il pelo ma non il vizio' has a small error, 'pelo' in Italian means hair, not skin. Consequently the translation should be: 'the wolf may lose his hair but he won't lose his vice'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.108.91 ( talk) 18:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
This just passed through AFC; could someone take a squint to more smoothly integrate into the other Joyce works on Wikipedia? Add it to the appropriate place on the Joyce template, give it the right cats, etc? Also it's a little bare, and I understand there was some interesting controversy about this that could maybe be better covered in the article. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 16:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Kevin Birmingham The Most Dangerous Book has a chapter where he seems to have nailed the case down that yes, Joyce had syphilis, and yes, it was quite crippling. See also his Annotations in a very recent issue of Harper's, I think last month's. Choor monster ( talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
James Joyce is not "one of the most influential writers in the modernist avant-garde of the early 20th century". James Joyce is "one of the most influential writers of the early 20th century all around the world".-- Sürrell ( talk) 13:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
ːːHe, he. What the hell you say? Only "of the early 20th century?" I reserve my opinion. I re-serve my (spanish) o-pi-nion. -- Sürrell ( talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Would it be noteable to discuss the impact that James Joyce has had on comics such as in strip 32 of this webcomic by Kate Beaton? Ranze ( talk) 17:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
James Joyce | |
---|---|
Born | James Augustine Aloysius Joyce February 2, 1882 Rathgar, Dublin, Ireland |
Died | January 13, 1941 Zurich, Switzerland | (aged 58)
Occupation | Novelist, poet |
Language | English |
Alma mater | University College Dublin |
Notable works | Ulysses (1922), Dubliners (1914), A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), Finnegans Wake (1939) |
Spouse | Nora Barnacle |
Signature | |
In the article, there's a comment:
However, there's no reference to these discussions, and there are none on this talk page, and I see no reason for there not to be an infobox (they're highly useful, and there's obvious precedent for its appropriateness). What is this comment on about?
Jameshfisher ( talk) 08:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was asked
on my talk page by the individual who opened the RfC to consider closing it. For those who don't know me, I'm Worm That Turned, one of the arbitrators on the Infobox case. I have no hat in the "infobox" ring, but rather base my thoughts on
this finding of the case - Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
Numerically (in this section), the "for" infobox group significantly outweigh the "against", but the majority of discussion happened in
the section below. Furthermore, the previous consensus
previous consensus (and remainder of archive) and
above section should be taken into account. Having read all these sections, I am convinced that there is No Consensus for an infobox on this article, in fact leading strongly towards not having one. There have been some bad faith arguments made by a couple of individuals advocating an infobox and an assumption that "it will do no harm" to have one, along with the standard argument of summarised information and microformats. The standard arguments hold less weight with me, as they should be discussed at a global level. On the other hand, those who advocate not having an infobox point out the aesthetics, the fact that it reached Featured status in this form. They also put forward arguments of what "could" be added, a standard argument against, and not one I accept as it's an argument for better stewardship, not the lack of infobox. Finally I note that putting a lot of effort into an article does afford you some sway, not to the exclusion of others and not against consensus - but in this case the personal aesthetics of those who've significantly written the article should be taken into account.
WormTT(
talk)
07:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Should the article James Joyce have an infobox? (see discussion under the previous heading and below for background) -- Albany NY ( talk) 16:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per section above, apparently the infobox format has already been amended and the influenced/influences which was the issue is already removed from the template. Another discussion regarding the matter should be started. EverestXT ( talk) 08:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
And who elected anyone an official on this article? Your position as an Admin doesn't excuse you of the responsibility of weighing the evidence I presented and considering the argument at face value -- quite to the contrary actually. And BTW, I made the change over a month ago and no one -- seeing as there are so many who are so concerned with this FA -- even bothered to take notice until yesterday. And moreover, I'm still waiting for a counterpoint to my reasoning, which was elucidated both here and in my edit summary (which obviously no one, including yourself, bothered to read). Wikipedia isn't about ownership. And more importantly, but that isn't even the salient issue here. By not giving me any sort of a counterargument it just shows me exactly what I already suspected about the parties who are arguing against the infobox in the first place... especially now that the grounds for its exclusion have been rendered irrelevant. You automatons are nothing but a bunch of self-righteous control-freaks, which is one major reason why serious academics don't pay Wikipedia much mind in the first place. Have a nice day. Ryecatcher773 ( talk) 23:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version ..."(my emphasis), nevertheless it is far better to attempt to build a consensus before adding an infobox where one has been previously rejected - whatever the reasoning. I've spent considerable time debating the value of infoboxes and I can assure you that personal aesthetics is actually one of the strongest arguments against having an infobox. Fortunately, it is an issue where editors can agree to disagree and I'd suggest that is the best course here. In a section further up ( #RfC: Should this article have an infobox?} there is an attempt to debate the question within the framework of an RfC. I'd urge all of the participants in this thread to contribute there. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The section which refers to Joyce appearing "In 1901, the National Census of Ireland lists James Joyce (19) as an English- and Irish-speaking scholar" appears to be out of context. I suspect that the editor thought that scholar was a reference to Joyce as a writer. Actually that is the normal term in a census of the period for a school child or university student. Royalcourtier ( talk) 19:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Featured Article without an infobox? Is that a record?! Sarah777 ( talk) 22:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Added information:
Stanislaus Joyce spoke of Joyce's turn on the Catholic church as his 'interim religion' (Geert, 90). More specifically, judging from reading Joyce's later views, we can see that he developed the attitudes of the artistic avant-garde during this time period (Geert, 90). During this time, artists and writers similar to Joyce were turning away from scientific materialism and creating a new spiritualism by considering theosophy, anthroposophy, occultism, and rosicrucianism.
-Included a link including the definition of rosicrucianism, since most users will probably be unfamiliar with this spiritual following.
Lernout, Geert. Help My Unbelief : James Joyce And Religion. London: Continuum, 2010. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 7 Dec. 2016.
ALSO
John Joyce took out a final mortgage on November 3,1903, and knew this would be his last (Ellmann, 143). This dire portion of Joyce's familial life appears in Joyce's works, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and later in Ulysses (Ellmann, 143). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenrenz ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
is all kind of messed-up. I am going to try to fix it up - bear with me if I make a mistake (like I just did) but I think *that* was because Archive2 had a pre-existing "closed" archive-template at the bottom... (sigh). Shearonink ( talk) 22:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on James Joyce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
For reference, the three sources listed in the 2004 featured version were:
From pre-revert to 2006 version:
'Why are you so afraid of thunder?' asked [Arthur] Power, 'your children don't mind it.' 'Ah,' said Joyce contemptuously, 'they have no religion.' Joyce's fears were part of his identity, and he had no wish, even if he had had the power, to slough any of them off.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Yes: who is McCourt? The citation needs to have a full reference, not just a last name. Currently, this citation has no validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.26.208 ( talk) 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
We have one painting, and five sculptures. Commons has a photograph (in two versions) and a drawing. There should be more balance. Kablammo ( talk) 00:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The article, even as it stands after pruning and extensive citation work, does not meet FA standards, particulary in the areas of critical reception and the author's influence. The Legacy section is not comprehensive; in fact it barely scratches the surface (and, despite recent improvements, still has some of the attributes of a coatrack). It may be best to establish a separate sandbox page for this section, and revamp it in a more deliberative fashion than a rush to bring it up to FA standards immediately and thereby avoid an FAR (if that in fact is where this is going). The remaining defects in other sections of the article can be done in the usual fashion, by direct editing. Kablammo ( talk) 13:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted a global change of George -> Giorgio. This, perhaps, needs discussion. The tombstone in the photograph says "George," so at least the photo description should not change. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Of his contemporaries, he looked much like Eamonn De Valera, but at the same time he did not. Anything else to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.45( talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The biographical sections could give a better sense of the man, his personality and (often erratic) working methods, as well as some more of his influences both literary - he was well grounded in both the English and French canon - ontop of the the straight narrative of his travels.
If neccessary, the sections on Ulysses and Finnegans Wake can be shortened to make way for this since they already have good articles of their own. Ktlynch ( talk) 13:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that old picture at the beggining of article is more known and more representative. (this one is good to) -- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering is Joyce much known beyond the English-speaking world? I was speaking with a number of Arabic speakers today and they had never heard of him. I'm not a fan of his really, really long sentences but I had thought he was well known beyond the English-speaking world? 109.78.46.48 ( talk) 19:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Since Joyce is part of the italian high school program and my high school was named after him i would say that he's known in italy. (please excuse my terrible english). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambaldo ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
He certainly would be known in countries in Europe outside the United Kingdom - after all, he lived part of his life in France, Switzerland and Italy. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Why has the article no infobox? {{ Infobox writer}} exists.-- Oneiros ( talk) 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's gauge current consensus of who supports or opposes inclusion of an Infobox. Yworo ( talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, look at all the snow. It's like an early Christmas...for Infobox haters. My bad, I didn't realize how much some editors disliked them for certain articles. Please forgive the disruption and return to your regularly scheduled programming. Yworo ( talk) 02:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
He is an agnostic, ¿isn´t he?, ergo he is not a roman catholic writer. Don´t start again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.140.204 ( talk) 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ellmann in his biography (citation needed) emphasises that while he was very obviously and militantly against the Church, probably against God, and a self-described Socialist and Anarchist in certain stages of his life, he not a self-described atheist. As the page already says, when asked when did he leave the Church, he replied that "It is for the Church to say." Also Gogarty referred to him as a "fearful jesuit" which made into the text of Ulysses (spoken by Mulligan in the first chapter afaik). The basis of that claim -- as he explains -- is that Joyce attacked the Church in the same methodological manner which he learned from the monks during his school years, a general attitude that really describes aspects of his work and method, if not his conduct. So the question is becoming more pressing here: what does it mean to be a "catholic writer"? Is it about the identity of the writer or the motives in the work? Is it enough to write a lot about how bad is the Catholic Church to become a Catholic Writer? Maxigas ( talk) 21:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Categories says "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category". I think that makes it fairly clear. Joyce's clear Catholicism is neither self-evident nor uncontroversial. In the on-going discussions around other Catholic categories of late, such as Category talk:American Roman Catholics, the distinguishing features used to determine 'Catholicism' are well-sourced clear and public self-identification and on-going religious practice as an adult. This is based on WP:BLPCAT guidelines but holds for deceased biographies also. I would say, yes, continue the discussion about finding a more specific category that more accurately describes Joyce, a description which is non-controversial and self-evident. The problem with "Writers influenced by Catholicism" is as Catholicism was Christianity up until 1520-ish and religion influenced pretty much all writing in Europe, all European writers before that date could be reasonably included in the cat. But I am happy to explore that line of enquiry with you. Span ( talk) 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I´m sorry! I did not realize that I had deleted the comment of Mamalujo. It was a mistake by copying and pasting, you know. Anyway I dont understand why you has deleted my contribution. Is this the english wikipedia?-- Sürrell ( talk) 18:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the best approach (as noted above) is to remove the "Catholic writers" category and find one more specific that is "self-evident and uncontroversial". Can we move forward with that? Span ( talk) 08:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
New Interuption-So what you are saying is that if I ,a dedicated and important Russian communist spend my entire life analysing the Roman Catholic church and criticing and denouncing it in every way possible-having a mind saturated with anti catholic hate-then I am to be classed as a Catholic or Roman Catholic writer? Its rather like suggesting that Himmler was Jew- after all he was obssessed with them !(end of interuption) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.11.150 ( talk) 08:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree (at least partly) with Mamalujo (and others) on two points. I didn't say that what sources say doesn't matter. But it matters only to the extent that it informs those of us in this discussion (or similar discussions) who make decisions here by consensus. Again, critics or what they write don't determine how a category is defined; we do. To say that "what we think as editors ... is largely beside the point" is inaccurate. Second point: Joyce's mind may be "saturated with catholica", which would define him as a writer about (or influenced by) Catholicism. Joyce's self-identification as a Roman Catholic would define him as a Roman Catholic. Those two facts are not interchangeable. Let me speak hypothetically. Writer X can be a Roman Catholic who attends Mass every day, but has never written a word about Catholicism. Writer Y can be an atheist (or a Muslim, or a Jew) who has written extensively about Catholicism. Those two people do not necessarily belong in the same category. I prefer that readers (Remember readers? That's who we are writing this encyclopedia for.) have some idea about what they will find when they see the title of a category (and then maybe read further to the category description). If I'm interested interested in what writers have to say about Catholicism and I'm a naive reader, I don't want to go to a category entitled "Roman Catholic writers" and discover (after wasting a lot of time) that most of them are Catholics but have never written anything about Catholicism. So, as I've said, I prefer to differentiate between categorizing a writer as a practicing Catholic and a writer who can inform me about Catholicism. Cresix ( talk) 21:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this is the very place for discussing the Catholic categories. Many of them are in a vague, confused and useless state. Who will clear them up if not editors such as us? Whether Graham Greene or Joyce should be categorised as Catholics are good questions that need exploring. The cats are only as useful as the articles listed under them. Span ( talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Mamalujo, you have missed my point. Please re-read my comments above. If Graham Greene writes about Catholicism, he could be included in a category "Writers Influenced by Catholicism" regardless of whether he never went to Mass or went to Mass three times a day. Anyone who writes about Catholicism, regardless of their personal beliefs, could be included in that category. Far from being impractical, it is one of the most practicel things we can do for readers (again, remember readers?) who want to find articles about those who write about Catholicism. Cresix ( talk) 01:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought that the best way to describe Joyce's religion was that of a lapsed Catholic. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm reading Joyce, Chaos and Complexity, it states it was his weakest subject, although he had a taste for Geometry, which can be seen in theIthica episode of Ulysses and the night lessons chapter of Finnegans Wake. He determinedly studied it to win an exhibition, though. Should this be incorporated somehow, or is it unnoteworthy? I haven't read the whole book yet.-- occono ( talk) 00:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think it is notable? I think in an encyclopedia article it is not worth mentioning, although I see how it is an interesting fact in such a book that you are reading. Maxigas ( talk) 01:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't understand what it doesn't have infobox. Every writer article does have it — Taro-Gabunia ( talk) 10:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering about this as well. The fact is the influences/influenced section would be pretty helpful, and it would certainly add a conclusive sense of his place in the literary canon (a pivotal one) to the article. Having checked, I know that many of those Joyce considered vital influences aren't noted as such in this article, or given significant weight at least, and even more of the writers who were influenced by him go unmentioned. Pound should probably also have an infobox for this reason, given his diverse tastes, but he's a less significant literary figure allover. Guys, this could be very helpful. Maybe it's not necessary for Shakespeare to have one of these, but more recent authors should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.97.38 ( talk) 13:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be made more explicit in the section dedicated to his legacy, stature, and influence? I'm fully aware of his importance, but I don't feel you really get a sense of it here. It's the same with Faulkner (if not worse). You'd think Hemingway was more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.97.38 ( talk) 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This article in its early stages describes Joyce as an Irish writer, but should it not point out that he liked to see himself as a European artist? Also, wasn't it the upset he had about his sister's health that some believe contributed to his relatively early death? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The first part of what you must be qualified, however, as Joyce wrote in a multi-lingual language as in Finnegans Wake and lived quite a lot of his adult life outside Ireland. The book where I read about the death of his sister was a book with a title such as "Makers of the Twentieth Century" - I read it back in the 1980s, so I cannot remember the full title now! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I did not know about his knowledge of the Asian languages, but he could not speak them fluently. I believe that there were not all that many languages which he did speak fluently - the ones he did were English, Latin, French, German, Italian, Irish and Norwegian so that he could read Henrik Ibsen in the original - he did not really know vast amounts of languages besides that, but he did have smatterings of many other languages. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
*Support as a nomintor I think this article should have infobox — 178.134.63.228 ( talk) 11:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read the Talk page and its archives. We've had this discussion many, many times. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
... and twist it. You can misuse and abuse it, but even God cannot change the Truth. I think I understand the problem. Will you please think about it: Joyce is no more or less Irish for being more or less Catholic. In his blessed memory, please, do not lie any more. Read his letter to Nora of August 29, 1904. -- 85.53.140.23 ( talk) 09:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paul II, G. K. Chesterton were all Catholic people or writers. They believed in their God and in the Catholic Church, and in their work and views it was clear, it was explicit. They constantly claimed to be Catholic. They do not conceal it. So the category in English Wikipedia doesn’t lie on them. However, Wikipedia lies in the case of Joyce, who resigned to Catholicism at age 16, which is demonstrated continuously by his actions and his writings. (No fear. Cfr. Article in Spanish.) Joyce did not believe in the church, Joyce did not love God, Joyce continually ridiculed priests and religion. I'm so afraid you have not read Joyce. Just you dare, copy here the letter to Nora of August 19, 1904. Scholars who you say, these Strong, Kenner, Noon, Boyle, merely present their views. If I were Catholic I do not hide it. I´m proud of it. And you? Do you hide? Proud? If Joyce were a Catholic, was well hidden. If this subjet isn´t safe, if you can´t prove, the best thing you can do is remove the category. Neither Catholic nor Atheist. If you keep the category, you are lying to the world about James Joyce, an Irish writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.137.218 ( talk) 17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC) -- 85.53.137.218 ( talk) 17:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
1. It’s you who see the matter of one colour. Unclear is the matter for you, of course. Not for me.
2. Brenda Maddox, William York Tindall…? I have the testimony of: James Joyce, Stanislaus Joyce, Richard Ellmann, Harold Bloom, Nora Barnacle... Please, don’t laugh at me.
3. Have you really read Ulysses, Finnegans? I doubt it so much. I want the text of the letter, haven’t it in English. Just you dare. "That is for the Church to say": Ha, ha. What does it mean? Please! Joyce was a great joker and thought precisely about you.
4. “Even those who see Joyce as a lifelong apostate commonly refer to him as a Catholic author”, “a Catholic, however heretical". Oh, yeah?
"Someone that left the church but whose notability was tied closely with the religion fell under the definition of the category"? Don't you really see? Then Augustine of Hippo is included in the category of perverts and Lucifer among angels. Gross, scandalous fallacy.
Sorry: This use of categories “absolutely mislead the interested reader”. Suposse I am a german writer born in 1917, Heinrich Böll. In 1945 I am somehow highly influenced by the knowledge of horrors of Nazism, but this doesn’t make me a nazi. Yes? If you say I am a Nazi writer, you’re lying about me. But you don't lie if you say I'm a Catholic writer. It is not difficult to understand.
“Roman Catholic writer (in the sense of "highly influenced by the church")”: Highly influenced is only “influenced”. V. gr. I am strongly influenced by Renaissance, but I am a cubist! Don’t lie on me to the people that doesn’t understand that subtleties! Therefore, if you say James Joyce is in the category “Roman Catholic writer”, you are lying about James Joyce, an Irish writer in foreign parts, still, always still! Please, respect his blessed memory and the "misleaded interested reader". Remove the category or I do.-- 85.53.146.79 ( talk) 10:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't call you liar. Excuse me, is a very delicate matter. Wikipedia cannot call white to black. W. must respect the memory of personalities. W. should not confuse people, especially if people is of low or medium culture. Neither Catholic nor Atheist. See the German wik. We are tired of such religious manipulations. This is it and nothing more. Any major dude will tell you ( Steely Dan). Thank you very much for remove the wrong categorie. Kh.-- 85.53.129.217 ( talk) 17:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised there's zilch about his letters in this article (other than the sterile mentions in the lists of publications).
I was going to add a note about the letters which were burnt, such as the letters Joyce sent to his brother Charlie (the zealously Catholic wife of Joyce’s brother Charlie forbade him from her house and forbade her son any further contact with his immoral uncle. She threw Charlie’s copy of An Exagmination Round his Factification for Incamination of Work in Progress, a book of essays on Finnegans Wake , on to the fire and later destroyed all his brother’s letters and signed copies of his various books. [4]).
There's also something to say about the letters burnt by his grandson Stephen Joyce, but I haven't found the full story there. Gronky ( talk) 17:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Since this has popped up again, and I'm re-reading Ellmann's biography, it might be worth noting that he refers to GJ as Giorgio until 1923; then he notes (p. 556) that he "now preferred to be called" George. References after this point call him George. So my position would be:
- both forms are fine. In an article on JJ, which form of GJ's name to use is utterly trivial.
- it would be a good idea to mention both forms either at first mention, or around 1923, if GJ is mentioned thereabouts.
- choosing one form and sticking with it, or using Ellmann's strategy and switching around 1923, would both be reasonable.
Henry Flower 07:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the Legacy section is devoted to the dispute with Joyce's grandson over use of letters and other materials in the literary estate. This dispute is given undue weight here. It need not be addressed at all in this article, as it does not inform us on Joyce's life or work. The dispute is already covered in the separate article on Stephen J. Joyce, and the expiration of copyright has made more of these materials availble for use. I therefore propose to remove the last paragraph of the Legacy section, dealing with the dispute. Kablammo ( talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Peter Costello, in James Joyce: the years of growth, 1892-1915 gives his name as James Augustine Joyce, for his paternal grandfather, Costello (1992) p. 53, and the Birth and Baptismal Certificate reproduced in the article also shows "Augustine". Ellman says: "The second child, James Augusta (as the birth was incorrectly registered) . . .". Ellmann (1982) p. 21. Should not we use the intended and baptismal middle name of "Augustine"? Kablammo ( talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps changing "occasional journalism" in the last sentence of the first paragraph to "occasional criticism". In its last edit summary, the IP made its first explanation:
I disagree, as did Joyce himself. Kevin Barry writes in the introduction to Joyce's Occasional, Critical, and Political Writing (Oxford, 2000):
— Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Joyce's Dublin – slideshow by Life magazine
Why is "The Cats of Copenhagen" included as one of the works of Joyce in the Template? That seems entirely misguided. "Cats" is a throwaway piece of writing, a whimsical letter to a child, that only achieved independence when it was published in 2012. If "Cats" is one of the works, why not "The Cat and the Devil"? Indeed, why not Danis Rose's "Finn's Hotel"? Rc65 ( talk) 04:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that the translation for the quotation 'Il lupo perde il pelo ma non il vizio' has a small error, 'pelo' in Italian means hair, not skin. Consequently the translation should be: 'the wolf may lose his hair but he won't lose his vice'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.108.91 ( talk) 18:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
This just passed through AFC; could someone take a squint to more smoothly integrate into the other Joyce works on Wikipedia? Add it to the appropriate place on the Joyce template, give it the right cats, etc? Also it's a little bare, and I understand there was some interesting controversy about this that could maybe be better covered in the article. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 16:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Kevin Birmingham The Most Dangerous Book has a chapter where he seems to have nailed the case down that yes, Joyce had syphilis, and yes, it was quite crippling. See also his Annotations in a very recent issue of Harper's, I think last month's. Choor monster ( talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
James Joyce is not "one of the most influential writers in the modernist avant-garde of the early 20th century". James Joyce is "one of the most influential writers of the early 20th century all around the world".-- Sürrell ( talk) 13:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
ːːHe, he. What the hell you say? Only "of the early 20th century?" I reserve my opinion. I re-serve my (spanish) o-pi-nion. -- Sürrell ( talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Would it be noteable to discuss the impact that James Joyce has had on comics such as in strip 32 of this webcomic by Kate Beaton? Ranze ( talk) 17:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
James Joyce | |
---|---|
Born | James Augustine Aloysius Joyce February 2, 1882 Rathgar, Dublin, Ireland |
Died | January 13, 1941 Zurich, Switzerland | (aged 58)
Occupation | Novelist, poet |
Language | English |
Alma mater | University College Dublin |
Notable works | Ulysses (1922), Dubliners (1914), A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), Finnegans Wake (1939) |
Spouse | Nora Barnacle |
Signature | |
In the article, there's a comment:
However, there's no reference to these discussions, and there are none on this talk page, and I see no reason for there not to be an infobox (they're highly useful, and there's obvious precedent for its appropriateness). What is this comment on about?
Jameshfisher ( talk) 08:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was asked
on my talk page by the individual who opened the RfC to consider closing it. For those who don't know me, I'm Worm That Turned, one of the arbitrators on the Infobox case. I have no hat in the "infobox" ring, but rather base my thoughts on
this finding of the case - Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
Numerically (in this section), the "for" infobox group significantly outweigh the "against", but the majority of discussion happened in
the section below. Furthermore, the previous consensus
previous consensus (and remainder of archive) and
above section should be taken into account. Having read all these sections, I am convinced that there is No Consensus for an infobox on this article, in fact leading strongly towards not having one. There have been some bad faith arguments made by a couple of individuals advocating an infobox and an assumption that "it will do no harm" to have one, along with the standard argument of summarised information and microformats. The standard arguments hold less weight with me, as they should be discussed at a global level. On the other hand, those who advocate not having an infobox point out the aesthetics, the fact that it reached Featured status in this form. They also put forward arguments of what "could" be added, a standard argument against, and not one I accept as it's an argument for better stewardship, not the lack of infobox. Finally I note that putting a lot of effort into an article does afford you some sway, not to the exclusion of others and not against consensus - but in this case the personal aesthetics of those who've significantly written the article should be taken into account.
WormTT(
talk)
07:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Should the article James Joyce have an infobox? (see discussion under the previous heading and below for background) -- Albany NY ( talk) 16:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per section above, apparently the infobox format has already been amended and the influenced/influences which was the issue is already removed from the template. Another discussion regarding the matter should be started. EverestXT ( talk) 08:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
And who elected anyone an official on this article? Your position as an Admin doesn't excuse you of the responsibility of weighing the evidence I presented and considering the argument at face value -- quite to the contrary actually. And BTW, I made the change over a month ago and no one -- seeing as there are so many who are so concerned with this FA -- even bothered to take notice until yesterday. And moreover, I'm still waiting for a counterpoint to my reasoning, which was elucidated both here and in my edit summary (which obviously no one, including yourself, bothered to read). Wikipedia isn't about ownership. And more importantly, but that isn't even the salient issue here. By not giving me any sort of a counterargument it just shows me exactly what I already suspected about the parties who are arguing against the infobox in the first place... especially now that the grounds for its exclusion have been rendered irrelevant. You automatons are nothing but a bunch of self-righteous control-freaks, which is one major reason why serious academics don't pay Wikipedia much mind in the first place. Have a nice day. Ryecatcher773 ( talk) 23:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version ..."(my emphasis), nevertheless it is far better to attempt to build a consensus before adding an infobox where one has been previously rejected - whatever the reasoning. I've spent considerable time debating the value of infoboxes and I can assure you that personal aesthetics is actually one of the strongest arguments against having an infobox. Fortunately, it is an issue where editors can agree to disagree and I'd suggest that is the best course here. In a section further up ( #RfC: Should this article have an infobox?} there is an attempt to debate the question within the framework of an RfC. I'd urge all of the participants in this thread to contribute there. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The section which refers to Joyce appearing "In 1901, the National Census of Ireland lists James Joyce (19) as an English- and Irish-speaking scholar" appears to be out of context. I suspect that the editor thought that scholar was a reference to Joyce as a writer. Actually that is the normal term in a census of the period for a school child or university student. Royalcourtier ( talk) 19:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Featured Article without an infobox? Is that a record?! Sarah777 ( talk) 22:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Added information:
Stanislaus Joyce spoke of Joyce's turn on the Catholic church as his 'interim religion' (Geert, 90). More specifically, judging from reading Joyce's later views, we can see that he developed the attitudes of the artistic avant-garde during this time period (Geert, 90). During this time, artists and writers similar to Joyce were turning away from scientific materialism and creating a new spiritualism by considering theosophy, anthroposophy, occultism, and rosicrucianism.
-Included a link including the definition of rosicrucianism, since most users will probably be unfamiliar with this spiritual following.
Lernout, Geert. Help My Unbelief : James Joyce And Religion. London: Continuum, 2010. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 7 Dec. 2016.
ALSO
John Joyce took out a final mortgage on November 3,1903, and knew this would be his last (Ellmann, 143). This dire portion of Joyce's familial life appears in Joyce's works, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and later in Ulysses (Ellmann, 143). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenrenz ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
is all kind of messed-up. I am going to try to fix it up - bear with me if I make a mistake (like I just did) but I think *that* was because Archive2 had a pre-existing "closed" archive-template at the bottom... (sigh). Shearonink ( talk) 22:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on James Joyce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)