![]() | 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 |
There's no link! It's false until there's a link stating what was said in the article.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.138 ( talk) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
What about copyright? Has it expired? Is the text freely available? Are translations freely available? Can i post them? -- 193.226.167.123 17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the material in front of me, but it should be noted that most English editions are based on a very early translation where the translator excised a little more than a third of the book.
Portions of the biography section are based on material from the 1911 encyclopedia. ---
Nothing about the fact that Verne is considered as pionner in Science Fiction ?
Around the World in Eighty Days is variously listed as published in 1872 and in 1873. The 1911EB says 1872 as do various other sources. I set both references on the page to 1872, because it was better than having one saying 1872 and the other 1873. But it would be good to clear this up. Dachshund --- I think the original version is 1872 and the English translation is 1873. Deb
Are we sure that Paris in the Twentieth Century is an actual Verne work and not a modern fake? The history of the found manuscript seemed very odd to me in 1994. Do we have more than the family's word for it? -- Error 00:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to know if "Paris in the Twentieth Century" is an actual JV book, the style varies from JV's normal style. also i have read many similar books on the same subject as "Paris in the Twentieth Century" and in a strangly similar style. ??????? Seb Britton -- 212.140.121.221 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
In fact, the style is quite typical for Jules Verne. Countless enumerations, a cynical sense of humour, and a great affection for music and literature. Also, the list of authors mentioned by Uncle Huguenin reflects Verne's own preferences, as well as some serious flattery aimed at Hetzel.
Verne is often referred to as "the pioneer" of the science fiction genre. I would beg to differ. Granted Verne speaks of space. The genre of science fiction does not, however, deal only with space. Manipulation of biology is, also, a plot device in science fiction. Hawthorne used just such a plot device in his short story entitled "Rappaccini's Daughter". It deals with a scientist who tries to manipulate the biological nature of his daughter in order to produce a different type of human being. Rappaccini also tries to manipulate the biological nature of his daughter's suitor with the thought of breeding the differences. This short story was published prior to the publication of Verne's short "space" saga.
Please feel free to check this premise by accessing the pages in the Wikipedia that refer to Nathaniel Hawthorne.
DM - in Sask.CND
Jules Verne was truly the pioneer of science fiction, do not argue. He influenced the king of science fiction, H.G. Wells!!!!!!!!! -- 152.163.101.13
One could equally argue that Edgar Allan Poe ("Hans Phall", "Mesmeric Revelation", "The Balloon Hoax" etc) pioneered science fiction. Science fiction as we know it today came about as writers in the 19th century used the level of scientific knowledge to either predict possible futures or use scientific elements in adventure stories. You can find science fiction elements in stories before Verne or Wells, or Poe or Hawthorne. However, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Journey to the Center of the Earth, War of the Worlds and The Time Machine are the cornerstones of today's science fiction. These authors do deserve to be listed as pioneers of the genre but as soon as one is labelled the first, someone can find an earlier example. Science fiction grew from the human interest in fictional stories and in scientific fact and no one author invented it. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Historical_pederastic_couples lists him with Aristide Briand. Nameme 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Others might see these as instances of mentoring relationships without any particular subtext.
The theory and the material brought forward in its favor are interesting, but must in the final analysis be regarded as unproven. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this instance the evidence can point as easily to more innocent conclusions. The notion may say more about the mindset of its proponents than about Verne's own proclivities.
I might or might not agree with you on this, but the fact is that my opinion or yours is irrelevant. The above are examples of editorializing, and - right or wrong - cannot be used here. Haiduc 11:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
One this topic, of relevance, not ONE word is mentioned in the French WP. How peculiar. -- Stijn Calle ( talk) 22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I do agree this part should be delete because there is not enough for this claim. Henri Cotillard ( talk) 00:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This section misleading. It makes it sound for sure Jules Verne had men for lovers and makes lots of guesses. An instance is his newphew. Its a big guess to make a claim that he was a gay lover and jealous just because he shot him. He was insane and sent to an insane asylum after. Maybe that's why he shot him. Henri Cotillard ( talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing this section due to questionable sources. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" Questionable Sources Asking us to prove that Verne was NOT involved in pederasty is absurd. Your sources are weak while your claims are extreme. The burden of proof is upon your head as you are promoting a fringe theory. You cite one book written in French and another one of your sources, "The Very Curious Jules Vernes," returns no information on a Google search. You are demanding that the section remains and that published opposing POVs be added to the discussion. The problem with a fringe theory is that mainstream scholars do not acknowledge them to be worthy of discussion or rebuttal. This "discussion" you wish to maintain is not relevant to the subject at hand, and that is why you will only find non verifiable sources to promote your theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.172.40 ( talk) 00:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
LE TRÈS CURIEUX JULES VERNE . Le problème du père dans « Les Voyages extraordinaires » [1960] , 248 pages, 140 x 205 mm. Collection blanche, Gallimard -ess. ISBN 2070246205. Le même ouvrage . Nouvelle édition en 1978, 248 pages sous couv. ill., 140 x 205 mm. Hors série Littérature (1978), Gallimard -ess. ISBN 2070278735. Le même ouvrage . Avec une note éditoriale de Jean Paulhan et une note biographique de Patrick Mauriès. Nouvelle édition en 2005, 280 pages sous couv. ill., 130 x 215 mm. Collection Le Promeneur (2005), Gallimard -ess. ISBN 2070773671. 22,00 €
Thank you for characterizing my tone. Had I dealt with you on that level you would have liked it a lot less, but I am not here to characterize you, you do that well enough implicitly. I am sorry, but seeing that you are admittedly unfamiliar with the sources I must conclude that you are unqualified to criticize them. There is no "onus" on me to do any more than I have done, which is to indicate that this aspect of Verne's life was and continues to be discussed in print by legitimate sources. The Lariviere book is also quite recent. Seeing that my sources are reputable, current and numerous, while your criticism seems to be based not on the substance of the entry but your discomfort level with the topic I will simply request that you restore the material you have groundlessly removed, so that I do not have to do it myself. If there is an onus it is on you, to know what you are talking about rather than bandy about groundless accusations. Haiduc ( talk) 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher.
Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:REDFLAG
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
Ok let's back up a second and keep this civil. I apologize for characterizing your tone. This is not a pro pederasty/anti pederasty issue. It's an issue of relevancy. I am simply asking you to comply with Wikipedias standards regarding verifiability as listed by Zeng8r. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.172.40 ( talk) 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No refrences mainly -- Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would think all 54 of his novels should be listed, instead of a 'selection' of 47... -- 81.107.46.167 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the connection bewteen Verne and May? Why is he listed in the see also section? -- 81.107.46.167 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
None except that May and Verne lived around the same time, one in France ane the other in Germany, and are both reverred in their own language sphere, albeit today as classical historic young adult authors. Both are colored by their time, social standing and country (therefore today considered chauvinistic and borderline racist). Theirfore their influence is as comparable as their writings are as different. Niklas o'Bee) 04:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
There should be some discussion in the article of his lasting influence, including some reference or discussion to all the different movies. (And of course, Back to the Future III should get a mention.) AnonMoos 12:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if Vules Vernes prediction of fuel cells is really noteworthy? I refer you to the wikipedia entry on fuel cells - "The principle of the fuel cell was discovered by German scientist Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1838 and published in the January 1839 edition of the "Philosophical Magazine". Based on this work, the first fuel cell was developed by Welsh scientist Sir William Robert Grove in 1843." This being the case, how could Verne have predicted an invention 30 years after it was invented? -- Crais459 13:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Your right. It read like original research anyway - drawing analogies from the past and layering them on the present. -- Stbalbach 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Verne predicted very few "invents". Mostly he used technology published in scientific periodicals which were not practical yet. Chvsanchez 02:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I made a couple changes, explained here:
-- Stbalbach 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not think Mercier had anything to do with Nemo being an Indian Prince. Nemo's identity is not made clear until much later in the Mysterious Island.------ Varnesavant 14:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that his tomb in Amiens is interesting enough to be worthy of a picture. -- 84.20.17.84 09:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a conflict between the English page and the French page regarding Jules Verne's education. According to the French page, he went to the lycée de Nantes, and when I checked the French version of Lycée Georges-Clemenceau (Nantes) (the page where the link sent me), I found Jules Vern under the list of graduates. I could not find any refrences to the Saint Donatien College, but I will make no changes to the page until I am sure. 71.116.122.90 ( talk) 07:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) vveareed
This is what I've picked up from the situatuion of this article becoming a GA.
To all editors of this page: This page is ready for GA word-wise. The only reason it isn't passing is that it has virtually no refereces. Please add references! Feel free to add on. Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I came to this page to modify a single instance of "in spite of the fact that..." and ended up doing more work on the "Scholars' jokes" paragraph that contained it to improve the clarity, but it still needs additional work. I could not quite make out the meaning of this sentence:
If that's a scholar's joke, I don't understand where the joke is.
I assume the remainder of the paragraph following that is saying that the use of outdated technology in what is supposed to be state-of-the art manufacturing in the two books mentioned are more examples of scholars' jokes, but I am not familiar enough with Jules Verne's works to be sure I can untangle it without mangling it. Would someone else be willing to take a stab at that?
Finally, I am wondering if this paragraph might not work better if the examples were put in a bulleted list and the parenthetical phrase about the cannon in From the Earth to the Moon were removed to a footnote?
I hope I'm not taking the "be bold" charge too literally; I'm a rank newbie here, so please forgive me any social blunders I may make. -- LBourne ( talk) 06:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes - and also the sentence "From the Earth to the Moon (the material used for the cannon — in this case it was probably poetic license, since the description of the making of the gun became far more dramatic)" also seems somewhat obscure. Far Canal ( talk) 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
None of these seem like so-called scholar's jokes to me? He referred to a flightless beetle flying, described an outdated steel-making method as state of the art, thought a herbivorous sea creature was carnivorous - these seem more like mistakes/sloppy research/bad editing or at best necessary elisions to keep the plot moving? I don't want to just delete as I don't know a vast amount about Verne and I'm sure somebody worked hard on this, but is it really needed? Pitt the elder ( talk) 10:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"He is the third most translated author of all time, behind Disney Productions and Agatha Christie, according to Index Translationum." If you're going to rate authors, counting Disney Productions is silly. This needs to be expressed differently but I'm not sure how. -- Richardthiebaud ( talk) 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information about the relationship between the writers Jules Verne and Gabriel Marcel??? Is there a will -after death- of Verne having to do with Greece? Does anyone know what the concept of the "hall" which is very important in Verne's novel represents? There is always a note or key-note or gravel and a door to this hall? Where is the door to that hall? Is there a woman or a machine leading to that other world? what is the relationship between Socrates, El Greco, Kazantzakis, the brand M and mysticism? In his novel "L' ETOILE DU SUD", Verne introduces a woman with a chalice and a disk.... this, in my opinion, is the Holy Grail! Christos Papachristopoulos, Athens, Greece... Help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.68.135 ( talk) 14:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources have to reflect the weight and relevance of a particular fact. Verne is primarily remembered as a Science Fiction writer. How much of the 'sources' actually mention pederasty? There appears to be no concrete proof of this - so is it right to possibly slander a dead person, given that, if the same allegations were made today they would be 'libellous and baseless allegations' or something similar? Shouldn't the section be cut down at least? Hinnibilis ( talk) 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I find this recurrent "pederasty section" frankly shocking, for several reasons:
Overall, this is a patchwork of selective misreadings, anachronisms and petty insinuations marred by commercial interest, which has the appearance of being sourced but is in fact not. Rama ( talk) 22:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
These speculations should be given the same weight that they are in published reliable biographies of him that are the same size as ours. As near as I can tell, they don't say word one about these speculations. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 18:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Where does Lottman say that JV was a pederast? The only places where, according to the currently deleted section, this is explicitly mentioned at all are
We should distinguish between references where you the Wikipedia editor are making a certain interpretation or inference, and where it is explicitly asserted or evidenced. Of the latter, we have to be sure these claims are cited in mainstream secondary sources, e.g. encyclopedias, accessible reference works. Hinnibilis ( talk) 11:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] On undue weight, this is a separate issue. This is where the situation where the fact is plainly established and in full view of daylight, but not particularly relevant to the subject's life or work. E.g. that Verne's father was a lawyer - would not command a whole paragraph, as with the pedo thing. The current problem I have is whether academic but nonetheless utterly speculative research is being presented as though it were in full view of daylight. Hinnibilis ( talk) 11:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It pains me to quote Mr Wales, but this is actually quite clear:
Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.
If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Hinnibilis ( talk) 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Haiduc restored the "pedastery" section without, as far as I can tell, any discussion regarding said action. Given that the consensus on this page seems pretty clear about keeping it out, I have removed it again. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 05:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I still don't think that this claim is sources well enough. To repeat:
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:REDFLAG
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
Stray comments from books introductions and the like are not good enough to include this claim, at least not so definitively stated. A short paragraph beginning "Some sources have theorized..." would be better, imo. Zeng8r ( talk) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion resumes
Not having participated in this discussion before, here are some comments. Firstly, is the proposed section undue weight on the issue. My feeling is that if we include anything on the subject, then we should limit ourselves to one or two sentences. There is no need to repeat the detailed arguments made in the sources. Instead, simply give a sentence explaining that modern literary critics have theorised <blah>, and source this sentence. However, my main issue with this section is whether it is POV. Are we apply a 21st century North-American viewpoint to a 19th century French author, and have the attitude on this subject changed significantly in the meantime? I would suspect that a 15-year-old boy could easily be regarded as being "of age" for sexual matters during the period of question. To me, pedaphilia / pederasty implies attraction to people who are significantly younger, and using the word in this context is definitely recentism and thus to be avoided. Bluap ( talk) 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would be comfortable with a one-sentence (or better, a one-paragraph) summary, if and only if the totality of the material goes into an article of its own (which may well grow anyway, as I have been running down another lead about homosexuality in his works).
- I totally disagree with the way you represent pederasty. The relationships are defined as being between a man and an adolescent boy, not a little child, and have nothing to do with pedophilia. This is not "recentism," it has been like this since Minoan Greece, three thousand years ago. Haiduc ( talk) 00:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Very strange this. I can clear this up once and for all. For one thing Butcher is not "his" translator. In any case, this idea of pederastic themes in Verne's writings is just an interpretation like any other, except it is not mainstream. It is not recognized enough to be included. Otherwise there are dozens of other published literary analyse that can be equally included. Also the Butcher biography is entertaining by littered by some factual errors. He says John Brown was murdered in 1856 when in fact he was really executed for murder in 1859. And a book or writing isn't determined "definitive" by the writer. That is determined by the readers.
Second, this whole idea of a relation between Verne and Briand is an old error that has been corrected but still comes up from time to time for whatever reason. What I mean is the idea of a relation between Verne and Briand was from a misreading of a handwritten letter by Verne to Hetzel on a Saturday in 1877 (see See Jean-Michel Margot, "Dernières précisions sur les rencontres Briand-Verne," Bulletin de la Société Jules Verne, 62:210, 1982). This isn't the only example of an error that somehow stays with us after it has been disproven or in some cases even when the original author takes back their claim. This error was corrected by no less a leading authority than Dr. Olivier Dumas, the president of the Société Jules Verne [here's their website http://www.societejulesverne.com/asp/index.aspx]. But this error keeps getting picked up: Dumas writes in his biography of Verne, "each one takes again the errors of the first." There is a brief discussion of this here: [1].
Third, if you've been around boys and some men long enough, you find Vernes' sexual double-entrendres are nothing out of the ordinary. I heard Mozart used to write similar "dirty" jokes in his music and even wrote something called "Lick my arse nice and cleanly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilightofthought ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Haiduc Completely Misrepresents Butcher
The bigger problem with Haiduc using Butcher to support statements to the effect of "Verne had homosexual leanings", or "Verne was a pederast" is that Butcher provides no support for such statements. The citation Haiduc gives (interestingly) is to page xxv, in the introduction, where Butcher suggests that the evidence "implies that a homosexual streak permeated his character". In this paragraph, Butcher is quite clearly not saying that Verne "had homosexual leanings". Rather, he is promising the reader that he will deal with the question of Verne's sexuality fully and fairly.
Why would one cite the introduction to a work instead of the actual work itself? Why would Haiduc do such a strange thing?
When you read the actual book, the answer becomes clear. After that one enigmatic reference to a "homosexual streak", Butcher spends chapter after chapter exploring Verne's straight escapades, his vulgar private correspondence, and his many women. In the chapter "Salvation Through Work", Butcher turns to the question of whether Verne was gay. Butcher opens by noting that "Heterosexual desire clearly governed much of his life," while talking of hints of "an inescapable undercurrent." Butcher notes that "Verne consciously camped up homosexuality," citing some of his more vulgar letters. Butcher attributes this not to homosexuality but to "a generalized and throbbing pansexuality" and "a repressed desire, localized nowhere or everywhere, attached incongruously to throbbing earth-mothers or ancient pianos or aged aunts or orally fixated double-entendres." Butcher talks of some of the biographies that describe Verne's alleged homoesexuality and dismissed them as describing this "without a shred of evidence, apart from the authors', admittedly homosexual, intuition". He concludes with this paragraph:
Verne, in sum, greatly enjoyed ambiguously bisexual flirting; and his sexuality was not fully heterosexual, diverted here, there, and everywhere. The Pope, the great-niece, and Disney's sanitized, neutered Verne are therefore a travesty. But it would be a foolhardy biographer that leaped upstream from the books to the life. Although Verne expressed strong urges, their exact nature remains unclear. However strong the urge, we cannot observe, with a conveniently angled lens, what went on in his 40 successive home bedrooms and hundreds of hotel rooms.
In summary, in characterizing Butcher as providing support for Verne being gay, Haiduc has either not read Butcher's book, or has read it and completely mischaracterized his argument. Butcher is, we can all agree, a mainstream source. That Haiduc is willing to so egregiously misconstrue an author to try to imply mainstream support for his fringe sources is nothing short of shameful. And with that, I am inclined to consider this matter closed, at least until such time as another reliable mainstream source takes up the question of Verne's sexuality anew. Nandesuka ( talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of Butcher, I gleaned the material from what can be seen on line, I will get around to getting the book itself to verify your claims. As for "fringe sources," that echoes that famous English paper headline, "Fog in Chanel, Continent Cut Off." It is easy, living in the Anglophone world, to dub as "fringe" anything not written in English. It is also ethnocentric. Haiduc ( talk) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Simply incredible. Maybe the next time you decide to attribute your personal opinions to published authors, you'll do them -- and us -- the courtesy of actually reading the works you are citing. Just so we can all calibrate the magnitude of the problem, which of the above works that you cited have you not actually read? Nandesuka ( talk) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a break! These are not novels. You go into a book and use relevant sections. Your conception of homosexuality has nothing to do with reality, and nothing to do with what has been written about him. And as far as misrepresentation, Butcher clearly says that one of Verne's characteristics was "a homosexual leaning that would become more pronounced in later years." (p.85). And is attacked by a private reviewer for "lugubrious allegations of Verne’s homosexuality." And this article also discusses More's hypotheses about "the writer's misogamy, as reflected in his constant disparagement of the idea of marriage and—claims the critic—in a strong undercurrent of homosexuality. If, in fact, many of Moré's ideas have since been considered tangential or mistaken, they did give an impulse for subsequent studies of Verne." (I do not know if it is the homosexual hypothesis that he labels "tangential and mistaken" but if you want to claim that, you will have to bring proof.) And this review describes Lucian Boia's Jules Verne: les paradoxes d’un mythe and his exploration of Verne's "ambiguous sexuality (woman-chaser and closet homosexual)." And the French material speaks for itself and does not need your personal opinion as seal of approval. Why are you wasting your time and mine with these fatuous "denunciations"??? Haiduc ( talk) 01:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Because, unlike you, I do not confuse being able to google for sentence fragments that support my prejudices with actual research. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- And the really funny part is, you can't even do that correctly. The blogspot link you provide (oh, we're really into the reliable sources now!) is a general critique of Butcher, that mentions said allegations, which we're all aware Butcher discusses, and which Butcher disposes of. But, y 'know, google came up with a blog when you typed in "Verne homosexual", so I guess that's good enough for you.
- For what it's worth I will agree that "the French material speaks for itself", since based on your track record you probably haven't read that, either, and thus aren't qualified to speak for it. At least if it speaks for itself it won't be misrepresented. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- You can snap at my heels all you want. It does not change the fact that this material is discussed in the literature but is being kept out of the article through contrived rationalizations. Also, you seem to completely misunderstand how Wikipedia is built. The fact that some of the information I have contributed may well be fragmentary is no reason to obstruct it. Someone else will come along and complete it. Over two million articles have been written in that fashion. You are just getting in the way with your obstructionist tactics. Haiduc ( talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's pretty clear now that the section in question should remain excised from the article. That citation from an introduction always struck me as odd. If a detail is important enough to mention there, it's usually expanded upon in the actual text. I guess it was. Zeng8r ( talk) 00:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If I may add something, has anyone seen my comment above? I think it decisively settles this issue which should save you all a lot of ink. The Jules Verne society cleared this issue up: it was all due to a misreading of a note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilightofthought ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Having observed the page for some time now, there appears to be a strong consensus that the topic does not belong in the article. A number of editors have reviewed Haiduc's arguments for inclusion, as well as the sources he has listed, and determined that there is no support for the claims being made. As such, barring a desire on the part of the editors here to continue the discussion, I would like to close and archive the discussion. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 06:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment What there has been is a moving target for inclusion of a topic that will not go away here, just as it has not gone away in Vernian criticism for the last fifty years at least, and maybe more if we include Mallarme's suggestive "le tres curieux Jules Verne." We are obligated to inform the readers that the discussion has taken place and continues to this day, instead of entitled to find rationalizations for a coverup and cosmetization of an image of the author fit for PG-13 consumption. Haiduc ( talk) 10:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Ckatz's suggestion -- this issue is closed until new reliable, non-fringe sources are brought forward by editors who actually read them. Nandesuka ( talk) 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This art performance was commissioned to celebrate the centenary of Verne's death. The various sources I have read state either that the story told in the performance was Verne-esque, or was directly based on a story of his. I'm not sure which is true. If the latter, does anyone here know which story this would be? I'd like to add it to the article. Thanks! Roisterdoister ( talk) 17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This page has many errors, and has been subject to continuous vandalism. Many corrections made in good faith may have in fact introduced more errors. There are many Verne experts who are members of the North American Jules Verne Society, William Butcher and Prof. Arthur Evans, to name a couple, competent to pass judgment on modifications, and once a definitive page has been established the page should be locked down and mods referred to arbitrators. This page has been denigrated by professional Verne scholars and has reflected unnecessarily on the quality of Wikipedia in general. ( Varnesavant ( talk) 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
Some historians and literary critics have theorized certain pederastic elements in the life and work of the writer. Jean Paulhan, in an introduction to a work written in the nineteen sixties but still seen as important, [1] describes two main themes identified in Verne's work. First, that "in life we must, little by little, substitute in place of our natural father an older and better man than ourselves," and later that we will need likewise to substitute, in place of our wife, a male friend worthy of esteem and admiration. The second theme is that "the entire opus of Jules Verne has, as its purpose and secret, pederasty." [2] His theme is picked up by a later work, that of Marc Soriano, who sees elements of "latent homosexuality, sublimated pederasty, misogyny" in Verne's writings. [3] [4]
Verne's close and lasting friendship with Aristide Briand, whom he met in Nantes in 1876 when the young man was a fifteen year old lycéen and schoolmate of his son Michel, is also cited as a possible example of his attraction to youths. [5] He frequently picked up Briand from the lycée and brought him to his house, and also used him as a character in A Long Vacation. [6] Michel Larivière, in his Homosexuels et bisexuels célèbres posits a quasi-universal theme in the novels of "an older and more experienced man who offers support and affection to a young and very handsome boy." Examples of such pairs are Lord Glevanan with the young Robert Grant, in The Children of Captain Grant, the dashing Pencroft with the fifteen year old Herbert Brown, the "brave boy" whom he "loved as if he had been his own child," in The Mysterious Island, and Kaw-djer and Halg in The Survivors of the 'Jonathan,' of whose love he writes:
Halg was the only one able to move this disaffected man, who knew no love other than the one he felt for a child... Is it because they have some dim notion of this disproportion that, despite its resplendent beauty, such an emotion astonishes more than it charms other men, and seems inhuman to them, even though it is above them? [7]
Another indication of Verne's pederastic or homosexual leanings has been suggested in his purported lack of tolerance for women, who are largely absent from his works, or reduced to insignificance, or subjected to a ferocious misogyny. Likewise, the incident of the attack by his nephew, with whom he had entertained a long term and affectionate relationship, and which was hushed up by the local press, is held to be indicative of either a sexual relationship gone bad, or else an attack of jealousy at the arrival of a new love interest. [8] In a recent biography, his translator, William Butcher, in presenting evidence for Verne's homosexual leanings, also cites the fact that he only fathered one child, spent large periods of his life and both major journeys in the company of his close friend, the composer Aristide Hignard who was probably homosexual himself, and spiced up his letters to Hetzel with double-entendres about oral sex. [9]
This article makes no reference to Caroline Tronson who was his first love as well as the inspiration for several of his early works. Smallman12q ( talk) 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The section says that Capitan Nemo is changed "to an Indian prince fighting the British Empire after the Sikh War."
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea says that "As revealed in the later Verne book The Mysterious Island, Captain Nemo is a descendant of Tipu Sultan (a Muslim ruler of Mysore who resisted the British Raj), who took to the underwater life after the suppression of the 1857 Indian Mutiny, in which his close family members were killed by the British."
Although both claims are consistent, the reference to Sikh Wars is misleading. Tipu Sultan had no relation to Sikh Wars. N6n ( talk) 09:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
That category needs a lot of cleanup. There's people in there hardly related to Verne, and locations only loosely connected to him or his works. I'd do it myself, but i don't have the time right now. I'm dropping this notice since it's the Google logo for today. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
" Verne wrote about space, air, and underwater travel before air travel and practical submarines were invented"
Surely air travel (i.e. ballooning) was already invented. The first hot air balloons - Montgolfiers, etc. - were invented in the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.17.137 ( talk) 12:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Please fix From the Earth to the Moon, and a Trip Around It to From the Earth to the Moon to correctly link to the wikipedia article about this book.
( talk) Rytisbalt 14:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
How is this article not flagged for lack of references? There are only two in the entire article, one about him being referred to as the "Father of Science Fiction", and one about his ancestry. There are whole chunks of the article that could be considered quite controversial, such as his reputation in the English-speaking world, his attitude towards Germans, etc., that have no references. What's going on here? -- 70.124.63.182 ( talk) 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Article states
However, he is the second individual, behind Agatha Christie. Number one is "Disney Studios", which is not an individual author.
Ridger11 ( talk) 20:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Ridger11
In the opening paragraph the word "is" is being used to represent three authors. Change it please. It bugs the living day lights out of me.
Verne, along with Hugo Gernsback and H. G. Wells, is are often popularly referred to as the "Father of Science Fiction".
{{ edit semi-protected}}
The words on the page should read "Britain]]" not "Brittany"
Profitwolf ( talk) 20:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} The text "Verne's second French biographer, Marguerite Allotte de la Fuye," should be changed to "Verne's second French biographer, his grand-niece Marguerite Allotte de la Fuÿe," (In addition to "grand-neice" a tréma has been added over the y, to be consistent with the same surname used for Verne's mother earlier in the Wikipedia article.)
The changed text should be followed by the following four footnotes, namely [2][3][4] and [5]. The bibliographic template should be used, and edits made so that the citations appear in the bibliography section which already exists below the article.
The first reference is to a particular page and indicates that Marguerite Allotte de la Fuÿe was Verne's great-niece (and discusses the quality of her biography.)
[2] Title: Jules Verne: Narratives of Modernity Author: Smyth, Edmund J. Publisher: Liverpool University Press (May 1 2000)
Page: 22
The other references are for the biography itself. [3] Title: Jules Verne, sa vie, son oeuvre. Author: Allotte de la Fuÿe, Marguerite. Language: French Edition: Édition originale Publisher: Simon Kra, Paris, 1928.
[4] Title: Jules Verne, sa vie, son oeuvre. Author: Allotte de la Fuÿe, Marguerite. Language: French Edition: Nouvelle édition Publisher: Hachette impr. Brodard et Taupin, 1966
Translated as: [5] Title: Jules Verne Author: Allotte de la Fuÿe, Marguerite Translator: de Mauny, Eril Language: English Staples Press Limited, London, 1954
68.145.187.67 ( talk) 22:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, don't mean to nitpick, but in the "Literary Debut" section, at the end of the first paragraph, it is written, "[...]geographical details lent an air of verisimilitude." This is a misuse of the word "verisimilitude," which means "the quality of truthfulness; having a likeness to the truth." The use of this word makes its accompanying phrase redundant. A better word to use here is "verity," if you feel like being fancy; "authenticity" would also work. Kim2jy ( talk) 15:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hes on the front page of google today, this should be added to wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.218.160 ( talk) 14:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI, today google's doodle is for Jules Verne, and the top result is this page. We're liable to see a lot more traffic (and probably more vandalism) here today. Witty Lama 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In the "further reading" section, the citation for the 1954 translation needs correction.
Replace "Eril de Mauny" with "Erik De Mauny" (according to WorldCat).
Replace "Jules Verne Author" by "Jules Verne"
68.145.187.67 (
talk)
06:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Google doodle image presently used on the page currently has no non-free use rationale. If anyone feels it really does add something significant to the article, a rationale would need to be added to the image page, to explain just what, and why this image should be considered to pass the Wikipedia non-free content criteria. Otherwise the image will shortly be deleted. I have no idea whether other recipients of Google Doodles have them shown on their pages, but I suspect not. Jheald ( talk) 11:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Book review: Jules Verne's 'The Secret of Wilhem Storitz'
Finally, revisions to an unfinished manuscript have been undone and the authentic story is available. The tale of obsessive love is stealthy, eerie and unstoppable.
By Susan Salter Reynolds Special to the Los Angeles Times May 2, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/books/la-et-book-20110502,0,6160500.story
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Secret+of+Wilhem+Storitz&x=15&y=19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.123.237 ( talk) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
"May" this "may" that. I can't be the only one to think this person should not be mentioned so prominently. Under a "speculation" section, yes. But name-dropping him in a long sentence without anything but a "maybe" because there is no proof at all, is too much. How could this be corrected? PeterHarlington ( talk) 18:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"Verne wrote about space, air, and underwater travels before air travel and practical submarines were invented, and before practical means of space travel had been devised."
Air travel had already been invented in late 18th century. See Montgolfier Brothers and their manned hot air balloon.
Practical submarine had already been invented in late 18th century. See Robert Fulton and his Nautilus submarine.
Thus, only space travel had not actually been invented then. -- 5.34.18.65 ( talk) 06:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph, which has long been questioned:
At the boarding school, Verne studied Latin, which he used in his short story Le Mariage de Monsieur Anselme des Tilleuls in the mid 1850s. One of his teachers may have been the French inventor Brutus de Villeroi, citation needed professor of drawing and mathematics at the college in 1842, and who later became famous for creating the US Navy's first submarine, the USS Alligator. De Villeroi may have inspired Verne's conceptual design for the Nautilus in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, although no direct exchanges between the two men have been recorded.
The first sentence is hardly important (Latin courses were de rigeur in the 19th c.). The rest of it describes an imagined influence for which there is no evidence. (Its inclusion has been challenged for two years.) If any editor would like to restore it, please provide a source that testifies both to the fact (if de Villeroi taught there when Verne was a student) and the supposition (that Verne may have been so influenced). Richigi ( talk) 20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I previously requested clarification of these paragraphs, but the new versions still seem lacking to me:
86.177.108.222 ( talk) 23:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of the editions of the book are titled "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" and so is the Wikipedia article. The previous edition on the infobox links to a non-existent page and as all the other references to the novel's title in the article are "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea", it should be left like that. Further explanation about the english translations is given in the English translations section on the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillermofdezg ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
What does it mean french breton? Breton is not a nationality since Brittany was annexed by France in 1532. At least you can say that he is a French from Brittany (as i am by the way). For example, would you say for a person from Marseille that he is a French Provencal? No evidently. So i think we should remove this...-- Tancrede ( talk) 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks like a few weeks ago all mentions of "France" in this article have been replaced with "Brittany" (see edits http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jules_Verne&diff=404006250&oldid=403756531 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jules_Verne&diff=404026706&oldid=404015414). Since then most of it has been reverted or reformulated (hence the "french breton"). I agree, this and the rest of these edits could be undone -- 88.183.27.67 ( talk) 23:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Breton is a linguistic and ethnic identity. However, I think that maybe it is not relevant unless M. Verne identified as Breton, or could be identified as Breton, elsewise he is just a Frenchman living in Brittany. Does anyone know? 203.49.129.67 ( talk) 08:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
(Regarding Breton vs. French, it's rather like English vs. Welsh.) Mr. Verne's father was from Paris, and his mother of Brittany, so: "I am a mixture of Breton and Parison blood." In a letter he also once said "I stick to my ideas like a Breton" (Bretons have a reputation of being stubborn.) There was a Scottish ancestor way back on his mother's side too ... a Scotsman named Allot emigrated to France in the 15th century and joined Louis XI's Scottish Archers. -- Maricatrin —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC).
It is still anti-French racism. For ten years the number of English on the Internet imply that there is no French person who does something remarkable in history. So we see become French Breton, Corsican, Flemish, Basque and so on. All this is pathetic and seen on Wikipedia. --Swax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.36.193.204 ( talk) 17:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I revised the lead to call the Footnote [b], re the three Fathers of Science Fiction, and reworded that note so it works when called from both locations. For what it's worth, I originally wrote the note to extend the remark on Fathers (without supporting the term "Fathers of Science Fiction"). I observed that Gernsback, Wells, and Verne were/are the three eldest members of this hall of fame; about one, two, and three generations prior to all others. But I had overlooked Mary Shelley, their elder (who is never called Mother of SF as far as I know). Covering the three Fathers and Mother in half-generations: G W V and S were about 1/2, one, 2-1/2 and four generations prior to the other inductees (now 65 others). This estimate is for the back pages only.
I reworded the SFFHF paragraph partly to give the citation of Verne simply, without specifying that it appeared on the official website, thus without hinting that the citation may have been written years after 1999 (we don't know). The source copyright date is 1997–2008, last update 2008-02-22. Where the source is cited in 30-some other biographies I have omitted those dates and stated "This was the official website of the hall of fame to 2004" (eg Hugo Gernsback#References, note 21).
-- P64 ( talk) 18:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
On Wells' page, it says he and Verne and the 'fathers of Science Fiction'. On this page, it says him and a few others. The others and sources, and on Poe's page, it doesn't even say he's a SF author. -- Imagine Wizard ( talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 11:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits Jules Verne (restoration).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 8, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jules Verne. 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) 02:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently Verne wrote many plays but there is zero coverage of them here.
-- 23.119.204.117 ( talk) 19:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Is Verne already dead in the deathbed photo? -- ExperiencedArticleFixer ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Why is it not mentioned in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:13D6:6A00:C801:E9E8:6091:ACAD ( talk) 17:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a small and enjoyable Verne Museum in Nantes overlooking the Loire. See https://julesverne.nantesmetropole.fr/home.html. Perhaps worthy of a mention in the article along with any other museums dedicated to Jules Verne. Everybody got to be somewhere! ( talk) 22:11, 11 January 2022 (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 |
There's no link! It's false until there's a link stating what was said in the article.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.138 ( talk) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
What about copyright? Has it expired? Is the text freely available? Are translations freely available? Can i post them? -- 193.226.167.123 17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the material in front of me, but it should be noted that most English editions are based on a very early translation where the translator excised a little more than a third of the book.
Portions of the biography section are based on material from the 1911 encyclopedia. ---
Nothing about the fact that Verne is considered as pionner in Science Fiction ?
Around the World in Eighty Days is variously listed as published in 1872 and in 1873. The 1911EB says 1872 as do various other sources. I set both references on the page to 1872, because it was better than having one saying 1872 and the other 1873. But it would be good to clear this up. Dachshund --- I think the original version is 1872 and the English translation is 1873. Deb
Are we sure that Paris in the Twentieth Century is an actual Verne work and not a modern fake? The history of the found manuscript seemed very odd to me in 1994. Do we have more than the family's word for it? -- Error 00:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to know if "Paris in the Twentieth Century" is an actual JV book, the style varies from JV's normal style. also i have read many similar books on the same subject as "Paris in the Twentieth Century" and in a strangly similar style. ??????? Seb Britton -- 212.140.121.221 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
In fact, the style is quite typical for Jules Verne. Countless enumerations, a cynical sense of humour, and a great affection for music and literature. Also, the list of authors mentioned by Uncle Huguenin reflects Verne's own preferences, as well as some serious flattery aimed at Hetzel.
Verne is often referred to as "the pioneer" of the science fiction genre. I would beg to differ. Granted Verne speaks of space. The genre of science fiction does not, however, deal only with space. Manipulation of biology is, also, a plot device in science fiction. Hawthorne used just such a plot device in his short story entitled "Rappaccini's Daughter". It deals with a scientist who tries to manipulate the biological nature of his daughter in order to produce a different type of human being. Rappaccini also tries to manipulate the biological nature of his daughter's suitor with the thought of breeding the differences. This short story was published prior to the publication of Verne's short "space" saga.
Please feel free to check this premise by accessing the pages in the Wikipedia that refer to Nathaniel Hawthorne.
DM - in Sask.CND
Jules Verne was truly the pioneer of science fiction, do not argue. He influenced the king of science fiction, H.G. Wells!!!!!!!!! -- 152.163.101.13
One could equally argue that Edgar Allan Poe ("Hans Phall", "Mesmeric Revelation", "The Balloon Hoax" etc) pioneered science fiction. Science fiction as we know it today came about as writers in the 19th century used the level of scientific knowledge to either predict possible futures or use scientific elements in adventure stories. You can find science fiction elements in stories before Verne or Wells, or Poe or Hawthorne. However, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Journey to the Center of the Earth, War of the Worlds and The Time Machine are the cornerstones of today's science fiction. These authors do deserve to be listed as pioneers of the genre but as soon as one is labelled the first, someone can find an earlier example. Science fiction grew from the human interest in fictional stories and in scientific fact and no one author invented it. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Historical_pederastic_couples lists him with Aristide Briand. Nameme 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Others might see these as instances of mentoring relationships without any particular subtext.
The theory and the material brought forward in its favor are interesting, but must in the final analysis be regarded as unproven. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this instance the evidence can point as easily to more innocent conclusions. The notion may say more about the mindset of its proponents than about Verne's own proclivities.
I might or might not agree with you on this, but the fact is that my opinion or yours is irrelevant. The above are examples of editorializing, and - right or wrong - cannot be used here. Haiduc 11:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
One this topic, of relevance, not ONE word is mentioned in the French WP. How peculiar. -- Stijn Calle ( talk) 22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I do agree this part should be delete because there is not enough for this claim. Henri Cotillard ( talk) 00:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This section misleading. It makes it sound for sure Jules Verne had men for lovers and makes lots of guesses. An instance is his newphew. Its a big guess to make a claim that he was a gay lover and jealous just because he shot him. He was insane and sent to an insane asylum after. Maybe that's why he shot him. Henri Cotillard ( talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing this section due to questionable sources. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" Questionable Sources Asking us to prove that Verne was NOT involved in pederasty is absurd. Your sources are weak while your claims are extreme. The burden of proof is upon your head as you are promoting a fringe theory. You cite one book written in French and another one of your sources, "The Very Curious Jules Vernes," returns no information on a Google search. You are demanding that the section remains and that published opposing POVs be added to the discussion. The problem with a fringe theory is that mainstream scholars do not acknowledge them to be worthy of discussion or rebuttal. This "discussion" you wish to maintain is not relevant to the subject at hand, and that is why you will only find non verifiable sources to promote your theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.172.40 ( talk) 00:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
LE TRÈS CURIEUX JULES VERNE . Le problème du père dans « Les Voyages extraordinaires » [1960] , 248 pages, 140 x 205 mm. Collection blanche, Gallimard -ess. ISBN 2070246205. Le même ouvrage . Nouvelle édition en 1978, 248 pages sous couv. ill., 140 x 205 mm. Hors série Littérature (1978), Gallimard -ess. ISBN 2070278735. Le même ouvrage . Avec une note éditoriale de Jean Paulhan et une note biographique de Patrick Mauriès. Nouvelle édition en 2005, 280 pages sous couv. ill., 130 x 215 mm. Collection Le Promeneur (2005), Gallimard -ess. ISBN 2070773671. 22,00 €
Thank you for characterizing my tone. Had I dealt with you on that level you would have liked it a lot less, but I am not here to characterize you, you do that well enough implicitly. I am sorry, but seeing that you are admittedly unfamiliar with the sources I must conclude that you are unqualified to criticize them. There is no "onus" on me to do any more than I have done, which is to indicate that this aspect of Verne's life was and continues to be discussed in print by legitimate sources. The Lariviere book is also quite recent. Seeing that my sources are reputable, current and numerous, while your criticism seems to be based not on the substance of the entry but your discomfort level with the topic I will simply request that you restore the material you have groundlessly removed, so that I do not have to do it myself. If there is an onus it is on you, to know what you are talking about rather than bandy about groundless accusations. Haiduc ( talk) 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher.
Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:REDFLAG
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
Ok let's back up a second and keep this civil. I apologize for characterizing your tone. This is not a pro pederasty/anti pederasty issue. It's an issue of relevancy. I am simply asking you to comply with Wikipedias standards regarding verifiability as listed by Zeng8r. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.172.40 ( talk) 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No refrences mainly -- Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would think all 54 of his novels should be listed, instead of a 'selection' of 47... -- 81.107.46.167 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the connection bewteen Verne and May? Why is he listed in the see also section? -- 81.107.46.167 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
None except that May and Verne lived around the same time, one in France ane the other in Germany, and are both reverred in their own language sphere, albeit today as classical historic young adult authors. Both are colored by their time, social standing and country (therefore today considered chauvinistic and borderline racist). Theirfore their influence is as comparable as their writings are as different. Niklas o'Bee) 04:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
There should be some discussion in the article of his lasting influence, including some reference or discussion to all the different movies. (And of course, Back to the Future III should get a mention.) AnonMoos 12:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if Vules Vernes prediction of fuel cells is really noteworthy? I refer you to the wikipedia entry on fuel cells - "The principle of the fuel cell was discovered by German scientist Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1838 and published in the January 1839 edition of the "Philosophical Magazine". Based on this work, the first fuel cell was developed by Welsh scientist Sir William Robert Grove in 1843." This being the case, how could Verne have predicted an invention 30 years after it was invented? -- Crais459 13:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Your right. It read like original research anyway - drawing analogies from the past and layering them on the present. -- Stbalbach 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Verne predicted very few "invents". Mostly he used technology published in scientific periodicals which were not practical yet. Chvsanchez 02:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I made a couple changes, explained here:
-- Stbalbach 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not think Mercier had anything to do with Nemo being an Indian Prince. Nemo's identity is not made clear until much later in the Mysterious Island.------ Varnesavant 14:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that his tomb in Amiens is interesting enough to be worthy of a picture. -- 84.20.17.84 09:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a conflict between the English page and the French page regarding Jules Verne's education. According to the French page, he went to the lycée de Nantes, and when I checked the French version of Lycée Georges-Clemenceau (Nantes) (the page where the link sent me), I found Jules Vern under the list of graduates. I could not find any refrences to the Saint Donatien College, but I will make no changes to the page until I am sure. 71.116.122.90 ( talk) 07:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) vveareed
This is what I've picked up from the situatuion of this article becoming a GA.
To all editors of this page: This page is ready for GA word-wise. The only reason it isn't passing is that it has virtually no refereces. Please add references! Feel free to add on. Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I came to this page to modify a single instance of "in spite of the fact that..." and ended up doing more work on the "Scholars' jokes" paragraph that contained it to improve the clarity, but it still needs additional work. I could not quite make out the meaning of this sentence:
If that's a scholar's joke, I don't understand where the joke is.
I assume the remainder of the paragraph following that is saying that the use of outdated technology in what is supposed to be state-of-the art manufacturing in the two books mentioned are more examples of scholars' jokes, but I am not familiar enough with Jules Verne's works to be sure I can untangle it without mangling it. Would someone else be willing to take a stab at that?
Finally, I am wondering if this paragraph might not work better if the examples were put in a bulleted list and the parenthetical phrase about the cannon in From the Earth to the Moon were removed to a footnote?
I hope I'm not taking the "be bold" charge too literally; I'm a rank newbie here, so please forgive me any social blunders I may make. -- LBourne ( talk) 06:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes - and also the sentence "From the Earth to the Moon (the material used for the cannon — in this case it was probably poetic license, since the description of the making of the gun became far more dramatic)" also seems somewhat obscure. Far Canal ( talk) 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
None of these seem like so-called scholar's jokes to me? He referred to a flightless beetle flying, described an outdated steel-making method as state of the art, thought a herbivorous sea creature was carnivorous - these seem more like mistakes/sloppy research/bad editing or at best necessary elisions to keep the plot moving? I don't want to just delete as I don't know a vast amount about Verne and I'm sure somebody worked hard on this, but is it really needed? Pitt the elder ( talk) 10:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"He is the third most translated author of all time, behind Disney Productions and Agatha Christie, according to Index Translationum." If you're going to rate authors, counting Disney Productions is silly. This needs to be expressed differently but I'm not sure how. -- Richardthiebaud ( talk) 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information about the relationship between the writers Jules Verne and Gabriel Marcel??? Is there a will -after death- of Verne having to do with Greece? Does anyone know what the concept of the "hall" which is very important in Verne's novel represents? There is always a note or key-note or gravel and a door to this hall? Where is the door to that hall? Is there a woman or a machine leading to that other world? what is the relationship between Socrates, El Greco, Kazantzakis, the brand M and mysticism? In his novel "L' ETOILE DU SUD", Verne introduces a woman with a chalice and a disk.... this, in my opinion, is the Holy Grail! Christos Papachristopoulos, Athens, Greece... Help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.68.135 ( talk) 14:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources have to reflect the weight and relevance of a particular fact. Verne is primarily remembered as a Science Fiction writer. How much of the 'sources' actually mention pederasty? There appears to be no concrete proof of this - so is it right to possibly slander a dead person, given that, if the same allegations were made today they would be 'libellous and baseless allegations' or something similar? Shouldn't the section be cut down at least? Hinnibilis ( talk) 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I find this recurrent "pederasty section" frankly shocking, for several reasons:
Overall, this is a patchwork of selective misreadings, anachronisms and petty insinuations marred by commercial interest, which has the appearance of being sourced but is in fact not. Rama ( talk) 22:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
These speculations should be given the same weight that they are in published reliable biographies of him that are the same size as ours. As near as I can tell, they don't say word one about these speculations. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 18:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Where does Lottman say that JV was a pederast? The only places where, according to the currently deleted section, this is explicitly mentioned at all are
We should distinguish between references where you the Wikipedia editor are making a certain interpretation or inference, and where it is explicitly asserted or evidenced. Of the latter, we have to be sure these claims are cited in mainstream secondary sources, e.g. encyclopedias, accessible reference works. Hinnibilis ( talk) 11:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] On undue weight, this is a separate issue. This is where the situation where the fact is plainly established and in full view of daylight, but not particularly relevant to the subject's life or work. E.g. that Verne's father was a lawyer - would not command a whole paragraph, as with the pedo thing. The current problem I have is whether academic but nonetheless utterly speculative research is being presented as though it were in full view of daylight. Hinnibilis ( talk) 11:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It pains me to quote Mr Wales, but this is actually quite clear:
Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.
If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Hinnibilis ( talk) 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Haiduc restored the "pedastery" section without, as far as I can tell, any discussion regarding said action. Given that the consensus on this page seems pretty clear about keeping it out, I have removed it again. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 05:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I still don't think that this claim is sources well enough. To repeat:
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:REDFLAG
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
Stray comments from books introductions and the like are not good enough to include this claim, at least not so definitively stated. A short paragraph beginning "Some sources have theorized..." would be better, imo. Zeng8r ( talk) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion resumes
Not having participated in this discussion before, here are some comments. Firstly, is the proposed section undue weight on the issue. My feeling is that if we include anything on the subject, then we should limit ourselves to one or two sentences. There is no need to repeat the detailed arguments made in the sources. Instead, simply give a sentence explaining that modern literary critics have theorised <blah>, and source this sentence. However, my main issue with this section is whether it is POV. Are we apply a 21st century North-American viewpoint to a 19th century French author, and have the attitude on this subject changed significantly in the meantime? I would suspect that a 15-year-old boy could easily be regarded as being "of age" for sexual matters during the period of question. To me, pedaphilia / pederasty implies attraction to people who are significantly younger, and using the word in this context is definitely recentism and thus to be avoided. Bluap ( talk) 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would be comfortable with a one-sentence (or better, a one-paragraph) summary, if and only if the totality of the material goes into an article of its own (which may well grow anyway, as I have been running down another lead about homosexuality in his works).
- I totally disagree with the way you represent pederasty. The relationships are defined as being between a man and an adolescent boy, not a little child, and have nothing to do with pedophilia. This is not "recentism," it has been like this since Minoan Greece, three thousand years ago. Haiduc ( talk) 00:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Very strange this. I can clear this up once and for all. For one thing Butcher is not "his" translator. In any case, this idea of pederastic themes in Verne's writings is just an interpretation like any other, except it is not mainstream. It is not recognized enough to be included. Otherwise there are dozens of other published literary analyse that can be equally included. Also the Butcher biography is entertaining by littered by some factual errors. He says John Brown was murdered in 1856 when in fact he was really executed for murder in 1859. And a book or writing isn't determined "definitive" by the writer. That is determined by the readers.
Second, this whole idea of a relation between Verne and Briand is an old error that has been corrected but still comes up from time to time for whatever reason. What I mean is the idea of a relation between Verne and Briand was from a misreading of a handwritten letter by Verne to Hetzel on a Saturday in 1877 (see See Jean-Michel Margot, "Dernières précisions sur les rencontres Briand-Verne," Bulletin de la Société Jules Verne, 62:210, 1982). This isn't the only example of an error that somehow stays with us after it has been disproven or in some cases even when the original author takes back their claim. This error was corrected by no less a leading authority than Dr. Olivier Dumas, the president of the Société Jules Verne [here's their website http://www.societejulesverne.com/asp/index.aspx]. But this error keeps getting picked up: Dumas writes in his biography of Verne, "each one takes again the errors of the first." There is a brief discussion of this here: [1].
Third, if you've been around boys and some men long enough, you find Vernes' sexual double-entrendres are nothing out of the ordinary. I heard Mozart used to write similar "dirty" jokes in his music and even wrote something called "Lick my arse nice and cleanly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilightofthought ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Haiduc Completely Misrepresents Butcher
The bigger problem with Haiduc using Butcher to support statements to the effect of "Verne had homosexual leanings", or "Verne was a pederast" is that Butcher provides no support for such statements. The citation Haiduc gives (interestingly) is to page xxv, in the introduction, where Butcher suggests that the evidence "implies that a homosexual streak permeated his character". In this paragraph, Butcher is quite clearly not saying that Verne "had homosexual leanings". Rather, he is promising the reader that he will deal with the question of Verne's sexuality fully and fairly.
Why would one cite the introduction to a work instead of the actual work itself? Why would Haiduc do such a strange thing?
When you read the actual book, the answer becomes clear. After that one enigmatic reference to a "homosexual streak", Butcher spends chapter after chapter exploring Verne's straight escapades, his vulgar private correspondence, and his many women. In the chapter "Salvation Through Work", Butcher turns to the question of whether Verne was gay. Butcher opens by noting that "Heterosexual desire clearly governed much of his life," while talking of hints of "an inescapable undercurrent." Butcher notes that "Verne consciously camped up homosexuality," citing some of his more vulgar letters. Butcher attributes this not to homosexuality but to "a generalized and throbbing pansexuality" and "a repressed desire, localized nowhere or everywhere, attached incongruously to throbbing earth-mothers or ancient pianos or aged aunts or orally fixated double-entendres." Butcher talks of some of the biographies that describe Verne's alleged homoesexuality and dismissed them as describing this "without a shred of evidence, apart from the authors', admittedly homosexual, intuition". He concludes with this paragraph:
Verne, in sum, greatly enjoyed ambiguously bisexual flirting; and his sexuality was not fully heterosexual, diverted here, there, and everywhere. The Pope, the great-niece, and Disney's sanitized, neutered Verne are therefore a travesty. But it would be a foolhardy biographer that leaped upstream from the books to the life. Although Verne expressed strong urges, their exact nature remains unclear. However strong the urge, we cannot observe, with a conveniently angled lens, what went on in his 40 successive home bedrooms and hundreds of hotel rooms.
In summary, in characterizing Butcher as providing support for Verne being gay, Haiduc has either not read Butcher's book, or has read it and completely mischaracterized his argument. Butcher is, we can all agree, a mainstream source. That Haiduc is willing to so egregiously misconstrue an author to try to imply mainstream support for his fringe sources is nothing short of shameful. And with that, I am inclined to consider this matter closed, at least until such time as another reliable mainstream source takes up the question of Verne's sexuality anew. Nandesuka ( talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of Butcher, I gleaned the material from what can be seen on line, I will get around to getting the book itself to verify your claims. As for "fringe sources," that echoes that famous English paper headline, "Fog in Chanel, Continent Cut Off." It is easy, living in the Anglophone world, to dub as "fringe" anything not written in English. It is also ethnocentric. Haiduc ( talk) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Simply incredible. Maybe the next time you decide to attribute your personal opinions to published authors, you'll do them -- and us -- the courtesy of actually reading the works you are citing. Just so we can all calibrate the magnitude of the problem, which of the above works that you cited have you not actually read? Nandesuka ( talk) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a break! These are not novels. You go into a book and use relevant sections. Your conception of homosexuality has nothing to do with reality, and nothing to do with what has been written about him. And as far as misrepresentation, Butcher clearly says that one of Verne's characteristics was "a homosexual leaning that would become more pronounced in later years." (p.85). And is attacked by a private reviewer for "lugubrious allegations of Verne’s homosexuality." And this article also discusses More's hypotheses about "the writer's misogamy, as reflected in his constant disparagement of the idea of marriage and—claims the critic—in a strong undercurrent of homosexuality. If, in fact, many of Moré's ideas have since been considered tangential or mistaken, they did give an impulse for subsequent studies of Verne." (I do not know if it is the homosexual hypothesis that he labels "tangential and mistaken" but if you want to claim that, you will have to bring proof.) And this review describes Lucian Boia's Jules Verne: les paradoxes d’un mythe and his exploration of Verne's "ambiguous sexuality (woman-chaser and closet homosexual)." And the French material speaks for itself and does not need your personal opinion as seal of approval. Why are you wasting your time and mine with these fatuous "denunciations"??? Haiduc ( talk) 01:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Because, unlike you, I do not confuse being able to google for sentence fragments that support my prejudices with actual research. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- And the really funny part is, you can't even do that correctly. The blogspot link you provide (oh, we're really into the reliable sources now!) is a general critique of Butcher, that mentions said allegations, which we're all aware Butcher discusses, and which Butcher disposes of. But, y 'know, google came up with a blog when you typed in "Verne homosexual", so I guess that's good enough for you.
- For what it's worth I will agree that "the French material speaks for itself", since based on your track record you probably haven't read that, either, and thus aren't qualified to speak for it. At least if it speaks for itself it won't be misrepresented. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- You can snap at my heels all you want. It does not change the fact that this material is discussed in the literature but is being kept out of the article through contrived rationalizations. Also, you seem to completely misunderstand how Wikipedia is built. The fact that some of the information I have contributed may well be fragmentary is no reason to obstruct it. Someone else will come along and complete it. Over two million articles have been written in that fashion. You are just getting in the way with your obstructionist tactics. Haiduc ( talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's pretty clear now that the section in question should remain excised from the article. That citation from an introduction always struck me as odd. If a detail is important enough to mention there, it's usually expanded upon in the actual text. I guess it was. Zeng8r ( talk) 00:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If I may add something, has anyone seen my comment above? I think it decisively settles this issue which should save you all a lot of ink. The Jules Verne society cleared this issue up: it was all due to a misreading of a note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilightofthought ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Having observed the page for some time now, there appears to be a strong consensus that the topic does not belong in the article. A number of editors have reviewed Haiduc's arguments for inclusion, as well as the sources he has listed, and determined that there is no support for the claims being made. As such, barring a desire on the part of the editors here to continue the discussion, I would like to close and archive the discussion. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 06:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment What there has been is a moving target for inclusion of a topic that will not go away here, just as it has not gone away in Vernian criticism for the last fifty years at least, and maybe more if we include Mallarme's suggestive "le tres curieux Jules Verne." We are obligated to inform the readers that the discussion has taken place and continues to this day, instead of entitled to find rationalizations for a coverup and cosmetization of an image of the author fit for PG-13 consumption. Haiduc ( talk) 10:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Ckatz's suggestion -- this issue is closed until new reliable, non-fringe sources are brought forward by editors who actually read them. Nandesuka ( talk) 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This art performance was commissioned to celebrate the centenary of Verne's death. The various sources I have read state either that the story told in the performance was Verne-esque, or was directly based on a story of his. I'm not sure which is true. If the latter, does anyone here know which story this would be? I'd like to add it to the article. Thanks! Roisterdoister ( talk) 17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This page has many errors, and has been subject to continuous vandalism. Many corrections made in good faith may have in fact introduced more errors. There are many Verne experts who are members of the North American Jules Verne Society, William Butcher and Prof. Arthur Evans, to name a couple, competent to pass judgment on modifications, and once a definitive page has been established the page should be locked down and mods referred to arbitrators. This page has been denigrated by professional Verne scholars and has reflected unnecessarily on the quality of Wikipedia in general. ( Varnesavant ( talk) 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
Some historians and literary critics have theorized certain pederastic elements in the life and work of the writer. Jean Paulhan, in an introduction to a work written in the nineteen sixties but still seen as important, [1] describes two main themes identified in Verne's work. First, that "in life we must, little by little, substitute in place of our natural father an older and better man than ourselves," and later that we will need likewise to substitute, in place of our wife, a male friend worthy of esteem and admiration. The second theme is that "the entire opus of Jules Verne has, as its purpose and secret, pederasty." [2] His theme is picked up by a later work, that of Marc Soriano, who sees elements of "latent homosexuality, sublimated pederasty, misogyny" in Verne's writings. [3] [4]
Verne's close and lasting friendship with Aristide Briand, whom he met in Nantes in 1876 when the young man was a fifteen year old lycéen and schoolmate of his son Michel, is also cited as a possible example of his attraction to youths. [5] He frequently picked up Briand from the lycée and brought him to his house, and also used him as a character in A Long Vacation. [6] Michel Larivière, in his Homosexuels et bisexuels célèbres posits a quasi-universal theme in the novels of "an older and more experienced man who offers support and affection to a young and very handsome boy." Examples of such pairs are Lord Glevanan with the young Robert Grant, in The Children of Captain Grant, the dashing Pencroft with the fifteen year old Herbert Brown, the "brave boy" whom he "loved as if he had been his own child," in The Mysterious Island, and Kaw-djer and Halg in The Survivors of the 'Jonathan,' of whose love he writes:
Halg was the only one able to move this disaffected man, who knew no love other than the one he felt for a child... Is it because they have some dim notion of this disproportion that, despite its resplendent beauty, such an emotion astonishes more than it charms other men, and seems inhuman to them, even though it is above them? [7]
Another indication of Verne's pederastic or homosexual leanings has been suggested in his purported lack of tolerance for women, who are largely absent from his works, or reduced to insignificance, or subjected to a ferocious misogyny. Likewise, the incident of the attack by his nephew, with whom he had entertained a long term and affectionate relationship, and which was hushed up by the local press, is held to be indicative of either a sexual relationship gone bad, or else an attack of jealousy at the arrival of a new love interest. [8] In a recent biography, his translator, William Butcher, in presenting evidence for Verne's homosexual leanings, also cites the fact that he only fathered one child, spent large periods of his life and both major journeys in the company of his close friend, the composer Aristide Hignard who was probably homosexual himself, and spiced up his letters to Hetzel with double-entendres about oral sex. [9]
This article makes no reference to Caroline Tronson who was his first love as well as the inspiration for several of his early works. Smallman12q ( talk) 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The section says that Capitan Nemo is changed "to an Indian prince fighting the British Empire after the Sikh War."
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea says that "As revealed in the later Verne book The Mysterious Island, Captain Nemo is a descendant of Tipu Sultan (a Muslim ruler of Mysore who resisted the British Raj), who took to the underwater life after the suppression of the 1857 Indian Mutiny, in which his close family members were killed by the British."
Although both claims are consistent, the reference to Sikh Wars is misleading. Tipu Sultan had no relation to Sikh Wars. N6n ( talk) 09:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
That category needs a lot of cleanup. There's people in there hardly related to Verne, and locations only loosely connected to him or his works. I'd do it myself, but i don't have the time right now. I'm dropping this notice since it's the Google logo for today. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
" Verne wrote about space, air, and underwater travel before air travel and practical submarines were invented"
Surely air travel (i.e. ballooning) was already invented. The first hot air balloons - Montgolfiers, etc. - were invented in the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.17.137 ( talk) 12:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Please fix From the Earth to the Moon, and a Trip Around It to From the Earth to the Moon to correctly link to the wikipedia article about this book.
( talk) Rytisbalt 14:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
How is this article not flagged for lack of references? There are only two in the entire article, one about him being referred to as the "Father of Science Fiction", and one about his ancestry. There are whole chunks of the article that could be considered quite controversial, such as his reputation in the English-speaking world, his attitude towards Germans, etc., that have no references. What's going on here? -- 70.124.63.182 ( talk) 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Article states
However, he is the second individual, behind Agatha Christie. Number one is "Disney Studios", which is not an individual author.
Ridger11 ( talk) 20:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Ridger11
In the opening paragraph the word "is" is being used to represent three authors. Change it please. It bugs the living day lights out of me.
Verne, along with Hugo Gernsback and H. G. Wells, is are often popularly referred to as the "Father of Science Fiction".
{{ edit semi-protected}}
The words on the page should read "Britain]]" not "Brittany"
Profitwolf ( talk) 20:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} The text "Verne's second French biographer, Marguerite Allotte de la Fuye," should be changed to "Verne's second French biographer, his grand-niece Marguerite Allotte de la Fuÿe," (In addition to "grand-neice" a tréma has been added over the y, to be consistent with the same surname used for Verne's mother earlier in the Wikipedia article.)
The changed text should be followed by the following four footnotes, namely [2][3][4] and [5]. The bibliographic template should be used, and edits made so that the citations appear in the bibliography section which already exists below the article.
The first reference is to a particular page and indicates that Marguerite Allotte de la Fuÿe was Verne's great-niece (and discusses the quality of her biography.)
[2] Title: Jules Verne: Narratives of Modernity Author: Smyth, Edmund J. Publisher: Liverpool University Press (May 1 2000)
Page: 22
The other references are for the biography itself. [3] Title: Jules Verne, sa vie, son oeuvre. Author: Allotte de la Fuÿe, Marguerite. Language: French Edition: Édition originale Publisher: Simon Kra, Paris, 1928.
[4] Title: Jules Verne, sa vie, son oeuvre. Author: Allotte de la Fuÿe, Marguerite. Language: French Edition: Nouvelle édition Publisher: Hachette impr. Brodard et Taupin, 1966
Translated as: [5] Title: Jules Verne Author: Allotte de la Fuÿe, Marguerite Translator: de Mauny, Eril Language: English Staples Press Limited, London, 1954
68.145.187.67 ( talk) 22:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, don't mean to nitpick, but in the "Literary Debut" section, at the end of the first paragraph, it is written, "[...]geographical details lent an air of verisimilitude." This is a misuse of the word "verisimilitude," which means "the quality of truthfulness; having a likeness to the truth." The use of this word makes its accompanying phrase redundant. A better word to use here is "verity," if you feel like being fancy; "authenticity" would also work. Kim2jy ( talk) 15:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hes on the front page of google today, this should be added to wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.218.160 ( talk) 14:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI, today google's doodle is for Jules Verne, and the top result is this page. We're liable to see a lot more traffic (and probably more vandalism) here today. Witty Lama 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In the "further reading" section, the citation for the 1954 translation needs correction.
Replace "Eril de Mauny" with "Erik De Mauny" (according to WorldCat).
Replace "Jules Verne Author" by "Jules Verne"
68.145.187.67 (
talk)
06:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Google doodle image presently used on the page currently has no non-free use rationale. If anyone feels it really does add something significant to the article, a rationale would need to be added to the image page, to explain just what, and why this image should be considered to pass the Wikipedia non-free content criteria. Otherwise the image will shortly be deleted. I have no idea whether other recipients of Google Doodles have them shown on their pages, but I suspect not. Jheald ( talk) 11:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Book review: Jules Verne's 'The Secret of Wilhem Storitz'
Finally, revisions to an unfinished manuscript have been undone and the authentic story is available. The tale of obsessive love is stealthy, eerie and unstoppable.
By Susan Salter Reynolds Special to the Los Angeles Times May 2, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/books/la-et-book-20110502,0,6160500.story
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Secret+of+Wilhem+Storitz&x=15&y=19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.123.237 ( talk) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
"May" this "may" that. I can't be the only one to think this person should not be mentioned so prominently. Under a "speculation" section, yes. But name-dropping him in a long sentence without anything but a "maybe" because there is no proof at all, is too much. How could this be corrected? PeterHarlington ( talk) 18:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"Verne wrote about space, air, and underwater travels before air travel and practical submarines were invented, and before practical means of space travel had been devised."
Air travel had already been invented in late 18th century. See Montgolfier Brothers and their manned hot air balloon.
Practical submarine had already been invented in late 18th century. See Robert Fulton and his Nautilus submarine.
Thus, only space travel had not actually been invented then. -- 5.34.18.65 ( talk) 06:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph, which has long been questioned:
At the boarding school, Verne studied Latin, which he used in his short story Le Mariage de Monsieur Anselme des Tilleuls in the mid 1850s. One of his teachers may have been the French inventor Brutus de Villeroi, citation needed professor of drawing and mathematics at the college in 1842, and who later became famous for creating the US Navy's first submarine, the USS Alligator. De Villeroi may have inspired Verne's conceptual design for the Nautilus in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, although no direct exchanges between the two men have been recorded.
The first sentence is hardly important (Latin courses were de rigeur in the 19th c.). The rest of it describes an imagined influence for which there is no evidence. (Its inclusion has been challenged for two years.) If any editor would like to restore it, please provide a source that testifies both to the fact (if de Villeroi taught there when Verne was a student) and the supposition (that Verne may have been so influenced). Richigi ( talk) 20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I previously requested clarification of these paragraphs, but the new versions still seem lacking to me:
86.177.108.222 ( talk) 23:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of the editions of the book are titled "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" and so is the Wikipedia article. The previous edition on the infobox links to a non-existent page and as all the other references to the novel's title in the article are "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea", it should be left like that. Further explanation about the english translations is given in the English translations section on the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillermofdezg ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
What does it mean french breton? Breton is not a nationality since Brittany was annexed by France in 1532. At least you can say that he is a French from Brittany (as i am by the way). For example, would you say for a person from Marseille that he is a French Provencal? No evidently. So i think we should remove this...-- Tancrede ( talk) 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks like a few weeks ago all mentions of "France" in this article have been replaced with "Brittany" (see edits http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jules_Verne&diff=404006250&oldid=403756531 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jules_Verne&diff=404026706&oldid=404015414). Since then most of it has been reverted or reformulated (hence the "french breton"). I agree, this and the rest of these edits could be undone -- 88.183.27.67 ( talk) 23:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Breton is a linguistic and ethnic identity. However, I think that maybe it is not relevant unless M. Verne identified as Breton, or could be identified as Breton, elsewise he is just a Frenchman living in Brittany. Does anyone know? 203.49.129.67 ( talk) 08:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
(Regarding Breton vs. French, it's rather like English vs. Welsh.) Mr. Verne's father was from Paris, and his mother of Brittany, so: "I am a mixture of Breton and Parison blood." In a letter he also once said "I stick to my ideas like a Breton" (Bretons have a reputation of being stubborn.) There was a Scottish ancestor way back on his mother's side too ... a Scotsman named Allot emigrated to France in the 15th century and joined Louis XI's Scottish Archers. -- Maricatrin —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC).
It is still anti-French racism. For ten years the number of English on the Internet imply that there is no French person who does something remarkable in history. So we see become French Breton, Corsican, Flemish, Basque and so on. All this is pathetic and seen on Wikipedia. --Swax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.36.193.204 ( talk) 17:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I revised the lead to call the Footnote [b], re the three Fathers of Science Fiction, and reworded that note so it works when called from both locations. For what it's worth, I originally wrote the note to extend the remark on Fathers (without supporting the term "Fathers of Science Fiction"). I observed that Gernsback, Wells, and Verne were/are the three eldest members of this hall of fame; about one, two, and three generations prior to all others. But I had overlooked Mary Shelley, their elder (who is never called Mother of SF as far as I know). Covering the three Fathers and Mother in half-generations: G W V and S were about 1/2, one, 2-1/2 and four generations prior to the other inductees (now 65 others). This estimate is for the back pages only.
I reworded the SFFHF paragraph partly to give the citation of Verne simply, without specifying that it appeared on the official website, thus without hinting that the citation may have been written years after 1999 (we don't know). The source copyright date is 1997–2008, last update 2008-02-22. Where the source is cited in 30-some other biographies I have omitted those dates and stated "This was the official website of the hall of fame to 2004" (eg Hugo Gernsback#References, note 21).
-- P64 ( talk) 18:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
On Wells' page, it says he and Verne and the 'fathers of Science Fiction'. On this page, it says him and a few others. The others and sources, and on Poe's page, it doesn't even say he's a SF author. -- Imagine Wizard ( talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 11:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits Jules Verne (restoration).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 8, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jules Verne. 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) 02:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently Verne wrote many plays but there is zero coverage of them here.
-- 23.119.204.117 ( talk) 19:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Is Verne already dead in the deathbed photo? -- ExperiencedArticleFixer ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Why is it not mentioned in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:13D6:6A00:C801:E9E8:6091:ACAD ( talk) 17:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a small and enjoyable Verne Museum in Nantes overlooking the Loire. See https://julesverne.nantesmetropole.fr/home.html. Perhaps worthy of a mention in the article along with any other museums dedicated to Jules Verne. Everybody got to be somewhere! ( talk) 22:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)