Talk:George Bernard Shaw/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Plays

Candida was not his first successful play. It was The Devil's Disciple. The Richard Mansfield production in America was the first production of any of his works to bring in significant money.

I'm not sure if the following general criticism is helpful, but it seems to me there's far too little on Shaw's plays. They are why he's remembered, after all.

New alphabet

FYI, The reason the new alphabet never got off the ground was because the courts said it wasn't the sort of thing you could have in a will (or indeed any trust). See Re Shaw. Am new here so not quite sure if this is relevant :)--88.105.191.23 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Ed

His name

How do you pronounce his middle name? I always thought it was ber-NARD, but I have recently been informed by two independent sources that it is BER-nurd.

I dunno, I know tehre is the story of the bloke in the street who stopped him and said "Ar you Shaw" and he replied "I'm absolutely positive" - think that says more about English upper class pronunciation of sure...--Red Deathy 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[[: It's the difference between American and British pronunciation, that's all. As an American, if you don't use (one of the) British pronunciation(s) for the rest of the words in a sentence, no reason you switch for his name either.

Indeed, as you note "BER-nurd" is the correct pronunciation of his name. However, on the written page (or in wikipedia) it is of little concern.

What's this bit about "Bernard Shaw" will be used in this article, if the whole rest of referencedom uses George Bernard Shaw. Who decided this? Is this a Wikipedia standard?

He was very confident in everything he did-except marriage.He was married for ten years,but soon found out about his wife's affair.He then shot himself and is buried in Canada where his family remains-(sister and brother)

I agree as well. Someone should change all references to "Bernard Shaw" to "George Bernard Shaw". I don't think the purpose of wikipedia is to uphold Shaw's original wishes for what his name is, but rather to conform to normal standards.

It is probably unnecessary to change every reference of his name to George Bernard Shaw. Any thinking person will recognize that subsequent references to "Bernard Shaw" refer to Shaw. He is and was also known widely as "G.B.S." and often signed letters, notes and other documents with these initials. That is not good reason, however, to alter a biographical entry such as this.

I think it should still be noted in the article that he preferred to be called Bernard Shaw even if he isn't referred as that in the article. I think it's worth knowing. Jeremy Peter Green]] 06:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we call George Orwell Eric Blair in his Wikipedia entry? What about Mark Twain? Is he being referred to as Samuel Clemens generally? G.B.S. and Bernard Shaw were the names Shaw chose for himself. What about Faulkner? Do we correct the spelling of his family name in his entry? Are we all refering to him as Falkner now? If anyone has the right to rename themselves, authors do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.41.246 (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Il Duce

This article leaves Shaw's veiws on Il Duce out "socialists should be delighted to find at last a socialist [Mussolini] who speaks and thinks as responsible rulers do."

• Look after the article ' The Politics of Unpolitical Animals ' (1933) . In this article there is a lot of Musso. In: Practical Politics, Twentieth Century political and Economic Views, 1972. Edited: Lloyd J. Hubenka. I've got another opinion, perhaps Shaw was a Mosleyite (Sir O. mosley).

Élie Halévy, who was connected to the Fabian Society said in 1936: "But the War came, and after the War what I have called the "age of tyrannies" began. The Webbs and Bernard Shaw have not been false to the convictions of their youth. They believe that they have been confirmed by events; and their sympathies are divided between Russian Bolshevism and Italian Fascism." Alas he did not expand further on this... Intangible 02:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Physician?

• Am I wrong that he was a physician by education?

(that he was a naturist also, may not be necessary to mention but was in the line of "New Life"

Missing Plays

• I don't see "Apple Cart" here !!!

• Should the article mention Great Catherine, or should it not because it's a one-act play?--Methegreat 00:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Millionairess, Too True To Be Good, In Good King Charles, Buoyant Billions, Fafetched, Why She Would Not Simpleton of Unexpected Isles ain't here. Should the article mention it?--Old Bill 10:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blanco is an one-act too, so why not? Thomas Mann also said, that Catherine is one of Shaw's best plays.

--193.225.246.2 11:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism?

What are the sources for the accusation of anti-semitism?

Certainly you thought of the preface of Millionairess. "Now no doubt Jews are most incongruous characters etc. etc." There he said just it would better for the world if Jews never existed. Shaw says "the Man is bad and evil and etc. etc.", so it would be better to the world, if less men would exist. He wrties: I can say too: it'd better for the world, if English (Irish) never existed. --193.225.246.2 10:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe more of the quotation from the preface of The Millionairess could give more context: "Any competent historian or psychoanalyst can bring a mass of incontrovertible evidence to prove that it would have been better for the world if the Jews had never existed. But I, as an Irishman, can, with patriotic relish, demonstrate the same of the English. Also of the Irish. We all live in glass houses. Is it wise to throw stones at the Jews? Is it wise to throw stones at all?"

Shaw was a master of paradox. It's easy to misunderstand his meaning, since he often uses irony and other literary devices. In any case, it can be tricky to state what he definitively believed.

Furthermore, he lived a long time and wrote quite a bit--even if he seems clear on a subject, he might have written something somewhat different on it elsewhere.

We should also remember he lived in a time when it was common to speak about the traits of a race or a group in a way that would be considered unnaceptable today.

Finally, we should note many of his most famous quotes come from characters in his plays, where he regularly presented different sides of an argument.

I have not read all of Shaw--that would be quite an undertaking--but I've read most of his plays and prefaces. I would say that even though his politics are unorthodox and sometimes distasteful, claiming he's anti-Semitic is quite a stretch. (For example, late in his life, he believed in listening to what Hitler had to say, but recognized that Hitler's obsession with Jews was foolish.) In fact, it would be easier to argue that he's less anti-Semitic than the norm at the time.

Vegetarianism

George Bernard Shaw was a noted vegetarian. The following was taken from the archives of the Vegetarian UK: "The Summer of 1946 seems to have been a season of anniversaries and memorials. The Vegetarian Society itself was looking forward to its 100th anniversary and giving its members advance warnings of celebratory plans.

But the big story of the July issue of The Vegetarian Messenger was the tribute to George Bernard Shaw, celebrating his 90th birthday on the 26th of that month. He had, at that time, been a vegetarian for 66 years and was commended as one of the great thinkers and dramatists of his era. "No writer since Shakespearean times has produced such a wealth of dramatic literature, so superb in expression, so deep in thought and with such dramatic possibilities as Shaw." The writer was a staunch vegetarian, anti-vivisectionist and opponent of cruel sports. " See link below for quotes related to vegetarianism and George Bernard Shaw.

I've restored thevegetarian section, iot gets a big write up in most of his biographies (esp. Holroyd) and deserves a paragraph, IMNSHO.--Red Deathy 08:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

the vegetarianism will continue to be included for the reasons previously mentioned, as well as that he was A: one of the few early very famous vegetarians and B: it empirically imformed and merited mention in his plays and essays.

A similar example is the Anais Nin article. It is mentioned that she may have had an incestous relationship with her father because it connected to her popular image and her writings. VanTucky 00:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The current vegetarian section, I think, should go.

'The Summer of 1946 seems to have been a season of anniversaries and memorials. The Vegetarian Society itself was looking forward to its 100th anniversary and giving its members advance warnings of celebratory plans.'

This has nothing to do with GBS

'But the big story of the July issue of The Vegetarian Messenger was the tribute to George Bernard Shaw, celebrating his 90th birthday on the 26th of that month.'

GBS attracted a lot of press coverage, and that in 'The Vegetarian Messenger' is not overwhelmingly important, surely?

'He had, at that time, been a vegetarian for 66 years' - notable, put it in the political beliefs section.

'No writer since Shakespearean times has produced such a wealth of dramatic literature, so superb in expression, so deep in thought and with such dramatic possibilities as Shaw.'

Vegetarians do not have a particular insight into dramatic and literary criticism (and FWIW, I've been a veggie for 25 years)

'The writer was a staunch vegetarian, anti-vivisectionist and opponent of cruel sports.'

That's the bit I added to the politics section. I hadn't noticed that I'd wandered into the middle of an edit war, but really, what of worth is in the vegetarian section? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

whoa whoa, when I said it was a part of his writing, I dont mean being a vege made him smarter or a better playwright, I mean it was an important part of what made shaw, shaw. the more info on what made him one of the most important playwrights the better. I agree some of it is repetitous or unnecessary, but that calls for clean up not deletion of the section. a brief mention isnt sufficient. besides, vegetarianism is a dietary habit not a political belief, however important a part of the Fabian ideal it was. to quote the man himself (from the new yorker)...

"While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth?"

Virginity

His involvement with the Fabian Society, which was dedicated to socialism through progressive legislation and education, also led to his introduction to a wealthy Irish woman Charlotte Payne- Townsend. Rumor has it that their long marriage was never consummated and that Shaw died a virgin. [1]

Shaw was a virgin until 29, when he was seduced by an elderly widow. The experience shocked him into 15 years of total abstinence. [2]

Shaw remained a virgin until the age of twenty-nine, when he surrendered to the charms of Jenny Patterson, a widow who was one of his mother's friends. At the same time, however, he pursued actress Florence Farr (who was also Yeats' mistress), with whom he would spend the evenings reading Walt Whitman. On one memorable evening, Patterson, who had been in Italy, returned unexpectedly and discovered Shaw and Farr involved in a fairly unusual means of interpreting Whitman's verse. In a scene straight out of a bad play, Patterson screamed at Farr that she couldn't have Shaw. [3]

In 1898, mistakenly believing himself near death, Shaw married the wealthy Charlotte Payne-Townsend, a fellow member of the Fabian Society. Though the couple had engaged in sexual relations prior to marriage, the marriage itself remained unconsummated for its forty-five-year duration. This was as much Charlotte's wish as Shaw's, as she wanted to ensure that she did not have children--a wish he seems to have shared. (ibid)

Listing as a "virgin" might not be accurate. --Uncle Ed 18:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Hehe... I have a friend who seems to think that he's a direct descendent of George Bernard Shaw. Which I guess is an impossibility then? me

Socialism

His brand of Socialism:

Shaw's own description of socialism reflects his cold perspective on humanity: "Socialism is not charity nor loving-kindness, nor sympathy with the poor, nor popular philanthropy ... but the economist's hatred of waste and disorder, the aesthete's hatred of ugliness and dirt, the lawyer's hatred of injustice, the doctor's hatred of disease, the saint's hatred of the seven deadly sins." Basing society on hatred fit well with Shaw's disdainful character. [4]

Although Shaw professed interest in helping laborers, like many socialists today, he confined his personal relationships to the intellectual and social elite. What friends he did make were primarily political allies within his socialist circles. He was profoundly uncomfortable around ordinary people, preferring words over actions and ideas over human contact when it came to helping the poor. (ibid)

Quotes

I keep on seeing the quote You see things as they are and ask, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and ask "Why not?" attributed to George Bernard Shaw, but it also shows up as a quote by John Kennedy. Which is it really? -- Allyunion 10:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kennedy was known for ending speeches with this quote. It wasn't his, but it's been mistakenly attributed to him quite often. I assure you the words were Shaw's, though there is some disagreement on the exact wording. -- WurdBendur 23:36, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

In Shaw's pentalogy "Back to Methuselah", he wrote: "You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?". This is the origin of the expression. Robert Kennedy often used a similar, but not absolutely identical, form of words. He might be said to be the author of his own version, but Shaw is certainly the "spiritual owner" of the expression. RFK's brother Teddy spoke this quote at Robert's funeral, which is where many people heard it for the first time. It still appears all over the internet, quite wrongly, as a Kennedy quote, sometimes with a nod to Shaw but just as often without. JackofOz 06:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the quote is from Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle. It's quite famous there and I'm sure Shaw wouuld have known it (Floyd)

Cheers to the above, it's from Die Walkure (although this is original research; I watched it last week).

The page used to attribute the following quote: "War does not determine who is right, only who is left." To Shaw. Most sources on the Internet which *are not* derived from Wikipedia attribute the quote to Bertrand Russell. An offline source I checked (a bookstore-branded paperback quotations book) also attributed the quote to Russell. Anybody have an authoritative offline source handy (i.e., Bartlett's?)

Nobel Prize & Academy Award

"Shaw is the only person ever to have won both a Nobel Prize (Literature in 1925; refused) and an Academy Award (Best Screenplay for Pygmalion in 1938)."

Al Gore has a Nobel prize and and an Oscar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.65.153 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this information is correct, so I removed it from the article. (A friend of mine and I checked if Shaw really refused this Prize, but we could find no confirmation. If someone knows better than we: Please post your source of information.)

However, [5] says that Shaw decided not to attend the Academy Awards... Ww Mon Jan 3 18:53:57 MET 2005

From the bio linked in the article (http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2003/may/bkpub.asp):

Whatever its weaknesses, St. Joan captured for Shaw the Nobel Prize in literature in 1925. Shaw donated the prize money to support the translation of Strindberg's drama into English.

Suggesting that he accepted the prize but made a donation of the money. Blorg 14:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shaw accepted the honor but refused the money.

See http://www.online-literature.com/george_bernard_shaw/

Wugo 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Misalliance

I started this article today and I welcome your improvements... Johntex 16:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are quotes here?

Don't we normally defer to wikiquote for that sort of thing? Will remove, but revert with a comment here if there's a good reason I've missed. — ciphergoth 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of them aren't on WikiQuote yet. Someone needs to fix that before they're all removed. Diagonalfish 02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, they should be moved to wikiquote. Cut and paste, it's not a difficult job. -- Blorg 11:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

External link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

• probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This user has added similar requests to link to biographies hosted on the same site to about 50 different articles. Although I believe that these requests were made in good faith, adding the links to all of the articles would be spamming. In addition, the biographies tend to be not very insightful and/or minimally informative, and the webpages contain Google AdSense links.

A fuller explanation of my own opinion on these links can be found here, if anyone wishes to read it.

Hbackman 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

Why is this still protected? There are no notable disputes that I can discern. 69.249.92.211 20:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Would someone with edit rights please...

Update the external link of the "Except from Caesar and Cleopatra" audiobook to the correct link--http://literalsystems.org/abooks/index.php/Audio-Book/ExcerptFromCaesarAndCleopatra

muchas gracias

Trivia

Under Trivia we say that Shaw was a motorcyclist, and gave TE Lawrence a Brough Superior.

According to Lawrence's official biographer (I've never known what that means), Shaw's wife, Charlotte, was behind a scheme to give Lawrence the gift of a motorcycle, and he did get it. Others were in on the scheme, and they are named, but GB Shaw's name is not among them. This can be found in Lawrence of Arabia, by Jeremy Wilson, Atheneum, 1990. There is a two-page discussion of this incident, pp. 847-848. Our statement makes it sound like the gift was directly from GBS, and I noticed a tag, "citation needed." Is there another story?

Sorry if I stumble; I'm new at this. Just scrape me off your shoe and move on.

Lodgepole 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Something on Shaw's religion (or lack thereof) would be appreciated. Biruitorul 06:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

His precise religious views are difficult - he couldn't be described as being of any formal religious persuasion, however he acknowledged his protestant background, which is something he included in his potted bio on all his books, and which deserves, thus to be in the intro - since protestantism clearly influenced his work heavily (St. Joan and Man and Superman specifically).--Red Deathy 08:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1) What about Back to Methuselah, Simpleton of the Unexpected Isles and Farfetched Fables (1949).

2) According to GK Chesterton, he was a "heathen mystic".--mariann 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the preface from Androcles and the Lion says that he did not believe jesus was god.

---

Views on Islam anonymous (29, Sept 2007)

"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."

"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."

[Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936] (Citation Source: http://prophetofislam.com/what_do_others_say.php)

"Medieval ecclesiastics, either through ignorance of bigotry, painted Mohammadanism in the darkest colors. They were in fact; trained to hate both the man Muhammad and his to them was anti-Christ."

"Europe is beginning to be enamored of the creed of Muhammad. In the next century I may go still further in recognizing the utility of that creed in solving its problems, and it is in this sense that you must understand my prediction."

[A collection of writings of some of the Eminent Scholars' p.77, by the Working Muslim Mission, 1993 edition]

Vandalism

Someone has vandalised the section on music criticism calling his work "bollocks, this needs to be fixed.

There's also some bizarre sentence in the list of works.

Revising George Bernard Shaw article

The George Bernard Shaw article requires extensive revision to improve its style and to weed out repetitious material. I plan to do it gradually but thoroughly. Please tell me if I'm overstepping boundaries.

Wugo 05:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please revise it. I wrote much of the Playwriting section and it would be nice to see the whole article smoothed out a bit. (If I have the time some day, I might add a paragraph about the unorthodox format and style of his published plays. It should be no trouble to fit in.)

Also, though this deals with substance, twice it's mentioned that Gabriel Pascal adapted Pygmalion into My Fair Lady. Pascal may have held the rights, but, ultimately, the adaptation was done by Lerner and Loewe.

The Playwright section has stuff about Shaw's birth that seems to belong in the "early career" or other section...perhaps rearrangement is in order? seventhtrilogy 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Shaw's vegetarianism

A special section in the article (George Bernard Shaw) is devoted to his vegetarianism. It has little substance and should, in my opinion, be pruned and demoted to a pair of sentences in the biographic section, perhaps linking them to a reference for extended reading. Does anyone object to that approach?

Wugo 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the section and put a mention in the 'political beliefs' section. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Squiddy- Your edit doesn't show. Does that mean someone reverted it to the previous version?

Wugo 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to the original and revised it by deleting repetitions and unrelated info as well as expanding it. VanTucky 04:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky– Does this mean you want to keep Vegetarianism as a separate section? Even with your interesting addition its contents seem skimpy.

Wugo 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It does get three substantial references in Holroyd's single volume biography. Perhaps an expanded Heterodox views to encompass his odd view of evolution, objection to vaccination and a few others I'm sure we could dig out if we tried. I've been meaning to do some serious work on this article for an age, just finding the time to do all the reading that's the problem...--Red Deathy 09:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Red Deathy- Shaw's Heterodoxy! Good idea. There's ample scope for detailing that and the result could make for fascinating reading. My priority, however, is reduce the tumult: Statements, often repetitious, appear in sections where they have no business. Once things are sorted properly, it will be much easier to amend the article. I have a new version of GBS nearly ready but hesitate to introduce it as an edit. I fear doing so would cause a storm of fire and brimstone and, of course, the dread reversion. I'm new at this; is there a way to present the entire revised article for discussion before I commit the fatal edit?...-- Wugo 15:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a heterodoxy section too. About a new version, you could put it in your userspace (eg at User:Wugo/NewGBShaw) and ask for comments from other editors, or you could introduce it in small portions from the top, and see who squawks. If your new version's structure is similar to the old version, the latter might be better. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Squiddy- Excellent suggestion! I didn't know that could be done. As well as allowing editors to comment on what I've written, it will allow me to restore the coding of citations that I savaged while composing my revision with Ms Word. I have already made a mock-up in my userspace to make sure I could do it properly. I'll post a notice when I believe I have something worthy of critical inspection.— Wugo 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a rough draft of my proposed revision of the George Bernard Shaw article. You can see it at User:Wugo/GBS. If you have comments or suggestions, please post them in User talk:Wugo/GBS.

Editing Wikipedia articles is a new experience for me, so I'll welcome any help or advice you may wish to offer. Wugo 04:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Revising George Bernard Shaw article

I have enlarged the Drama section in this article and added added direct external links to e-book versions of all plays.

Addendum: Same treatment for Novels. Added new section Essays Will also add e-book link to Shaw-Chesterton Debate Would anyone object to removing Sesquicentennial anniversary of birth? It is no longer news. Perhaps a section dealing with recurring Shaw festivities would be appropriate?

Wugo 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I undid revision 86.138.157.151 because it is trivial speculation inserted without citing a supporting source. I tried, to attch a comment explaining the reason for my action, but was unable. Can someone tell me how to do that? Wugo 02:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw Revision--Peer Review?

The current version requires flab-removal surgery, but I would really like some input before proceeding. How does one go about getting a Peer Review?

Wugo 18:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So much for peer review

OK— I found Wikipedia:External peer review. That's out of the question, I suppose. How do I get critical input for my revision of George Bernard Shaw?

Wugo 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I found Wiki's internal peer review[6] and requested suggestions to improve GBS. I thought it best to do so before attempting to add uniformity of style to what is now a patchwork.

Wugo 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed! by Awadewit, an editor with much experience. Excellent suggestions. I printed them and will begin revisions. Wugo 16:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to Awadewit's review: [7] I'll make sure his suggestions have been attended to, then request a new review.Wugo (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit suggests a discussion of Shaw's letter-writing style. I hesitate because it would involve opinions instead of objective facts. Even in his business correspondence one finds flashes of his humor. Is that worth a documenting?

His correspondence with women, usually actresses with talent, puts him in the role of mentor: He extols their genius and tells them how to develop full potential. In other words, lifelong, his letters to the ladies either presage or recapitulate the thesis of Pygmalion. I think that worth discussing, but it is my personal observation, not supported by biographers, hence outside Wicki's limits. Suggestions, anyone? Wugo (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GBS Infobox

I don't know who added the infobox, but am grateful for it. I have a question: Shaw was born in Dublin and is accepted as an Irish author. However, he moved to London long before Eire became a free state and never lived beneath the Irish flag that's displayed in the box. Is the flag appropriate?

Wugo 01:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about that when I put the infobox in. When Shaw was born, all of Ireland was ruled from Britain, but I thought it would be misleading to use the British flag. Maybe it would be best to remove the flag altogether? I only filled in that field because it was there when I grabbed the infobox from H G Wells' page :) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the Irish claim Shaw as as their own, the flag seems quite misleading. As far as I know, Shaw was a loyal British subject without Free Statist inclinations. I vote to remove the flag.

Wugo 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed the flag. I've also changed 'nationality' from Ireland to Irish. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)`

Good, on both counts. I think St. Patrick would concur. What do you have to document Schopenhauer's influence?

Wugo 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just from my sources here at home, I've only got a ref in a letter denying his qualifications to talk about Schopenhaur:

'The truth is I am rather an impostor as a pundit in the philosophy of Schopenhauer & Nietzsche.' (Dan H. Laurence [Ed.], Bernard Shaw - Collected Letters 1898-1910, London, 1972, p 553)

He was trying to play down his interest in Nietzsche because he was annoyed that the latter's Ubermensch idea was so similar to his superman. It's implicit that he was thought of as a 'pundit' on the two. There is also a cartoon by Max Beerbohm (which I can't find online) where Shaw is taking some clothes to a pawnbroker, who says 'I've seen these before: Mr Ibsen's waistcoat, Mr Schopenhaur's trousers, Mr Nietzsche's overcoat...'

These aren't fantastic references I admit - I will try to find better when I go to a library later in the week. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The best I can offer is the *Preface to Major Barbara [8] and that is not much help.

Wugo 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Schopenhaur, there's a letter from William Archer to GBS saying he had done 'nothing really big, nothing original, solid, first-rate, enduring'. He then wrote

You say "Your men are Wagner, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Schopenhaur, Nietzsche" - I should reverse it and say you are their man. Why should this be? Why should you always be flying somebody else's banner and shouting somebody else's war-cry, with only the addition of your Irish accent?(Micheal Holroyd, "Bernard Shaw: vol 2.: The Pursuit of Power, London, 1989, p 68)

and

To Schopenhaur, Shaw wrote: "the Will is the universal tormentor of man, the author of that great evil, Life; whist reason is the divine gift that is finally to overcome this life-creating will and lead, through its abnegation to cessation and peace, annihilation and Nirvana. This is the doctrine of Pessimism.' Shaw took Schopenhaur's philosophy of Will and turned it into a doctrine of optimism by subduing the individual to the universal Will, the Will of Nature.'(same book, p 18-19)

Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Those citations look good enough to me. I think you should discuss them in the section on Shaw's Socialism.

Wugo 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Shaw on education

When I began editing GBS I found this statement "He said he educated himself and commented "The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school." in his biographhy No source was given so I supplied some links to articles mentioning the comments. Now, I'd like to replace them with references to exactly when and where Shaw uttered them. No luck at all. After searching far more diligently than my norm, I'm beginning to believe Shaw never said those things, despite the fact he is frequently given the (unsourced) attributions.

I'm hoping someone more erudite than I can verify the quotations as authentic. Please?

Wugo 22:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I have replaced those overused quotations with ones for which Shaw is culpable without a doubt.

Wugo 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find that quote either; I found some which echo the one you have added:

'It is a ghastly business, quite beyond words, this schooling' (preface to Misalliance)

when he [GBS] was almost ten, [he] was sent to his first school, the Wesleyan Connexional... He hated this school. 'I have not a good word to say for it' he wrote in 1928 to another old Wesleyan. 'It could not even teach Latin; and it never seriously tried to teach anything else. A more futile boy prison could not be imagined.' ... 'In these creches - for that is exactly what they were - I learnt nothing.'(Holroyd, Bernard Shaw: vol 1. The Search for Love, London, 1988, p 33)

Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Misquoting Shaw

Now I find Shaw may not have said "England and America are two countries divided by a common language." or anything remotely like it. If anyone can prove me wrong, I will be most grateful. Otherwise I'll cut that quotation out and supply one more believable.

Wugo 02:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'Oxford Dictionary of Quotations' (6th edition, 2004) has that quote in the 'misquotations' section, and says that it is not found in Shaw's published writings. I've replaced it with one I like. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Squiddy! You've inspired me to order my own copy of ODQ from Amazon. I am spending far too much time verifying quotations. Reading all that Shaw has been a lot of fun, however.

Wugo 16:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Money well spent, its a great book just to dip into, quite apart from its usefulness. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bravo gentlemen. btw, the vegetarianism section quote by GBS is from the NYT, so if you found they misquoted I'd love to hear about it so I can write them a snide letter. :) VanTucky 17:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Prose section

The 'Prose' section contains a few lines of text around external links. Would it be better to delete this section (there's a link to wikisource, after all) and put the links in the 'external links' section? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave the Prose section alone for a while. I put it in with the intention of expanding it considerably, which I will do once I have extirpated all the fake quotations. By the way, I have some good ones for the Vegetarian section.

Wugo 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Squiddy,

I have enlarged the "Prose" section of GBS while deleting all quotations. I have more material to add, pending further research.

Wugo 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've pruned the prose section considerably, to remove a lot of subjective opinion. Describing Shaw's work as 'superb', 'seems freshly written', 'a good introduction' are all subjective judgements which shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. If you know of reliable commentators who say such things, that can be quoted and attributed, but editors opinions should be kept out of articles - ideally a reader shouldn't be able to guess whether the author(s) of the article approve or disapprove of the subject.

After doing this, the section seemed to be about Shaw's political writing, so I retitled it.

Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Squiddy, I may have strayed from the nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_nowiki.png Ignore wiki formattingeutral point of view, although I will deny it till your final breath. No matter. I thank you for replacing my external links with footnotes as is in accordance with Wiki's guidelines. I must do that in the other sections, too.

Political Writing may not be a good title for the section that I have been calling Prose because not all of Shaw's prose is political in nature. One example is his Treatise on Parents and Children, which you have removed. Others would include his writings about the Life Force, medical practice, and religion. Of course, you could not have known that I contemplated excursions into those areas. Let's let your title stand until additions justify a change, ib order to avoid excessive editorial churning.

A question: Much of Shaw is unavailable online and the paper versions out-of-print and rare. I find that Commons is willing to upload PDF files created by scanning the originals. Do you think Wikipedia will accept such files as valid references? I would like to use the method for displaying items in Shaw's correspondence because they reveal the man more clearly than does his formal writing.

(Not one peep from a reviewer yet. I hope I haven't laid an unfertile egg there.)

Wugo 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: the section header, I'm quite willing to see 'Prose' as a section header, but the plays and criticism were also in prose, so I thought 'political writing' fitted better, but this is a small point.

In answer to your question, I'm not sure about commons and how it works, and I assume that Shaw is all out of copyright as he died over 50 years ago, but I'm not a lawyer. However, the good news is that you do not need to cite only from electronic sources - there is a {{cite book}} template (Template:Cite book), which has fields for title, author, publisher, page no., ISBN... and you can use this. People wishing to check it would just have to go to a library. If there's an online version it makes it easier, but don't feel that all the cites must go to online sources. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Squiddy, "Prose" is not suitable, either. I want a term to encompass writings other than drama, letters, and reviews. I have considered "Treatises and Essays" with dubiety. Perhaps one of us will have an inspiration. I understand citations of printed texts are acceptable, but prefer to use electronic references where possible, because of their convenience for the reader. Nevertheless, I'm glad you introduced me to the template; I was not aware of it. Red Deathy, in the topic after this one, says the UK continues copyrights for seventy years. I suppose that is the kiss of death for my PDF ambitions/ Wugo 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Actually, an interesting thing I've fancied adding to the article is that Shaw's work is still in copyright in the UK, unless I'm very much mistaken - 70 years after the author's death is the time here (and I think that applies throughout Europe, I'd have to check) anyway, the berne convention would make it 50 years after his death in most countries. (but, yes, plays written in 1894 are still copyright in the UK, and the money goes to the national trust).--Red Deathy 11:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad news for me, who had hoped to copy Shaw without shame or let. Still, a ray of hope remains: Please look at Copyright law of the United Kingdom and tell me what you think. As I read it, I will be free to carry out my evil scheme some time in 2020!

Wugo 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Question for Red Deathy- Project Gutenberg (PG), housed in the USA supplies texts of books if their USA copyright has expired. Shaw's work fits into that category; so PG says it's available to US citizenry but cautions against downloading in countries where copyright is still in force. Does that deter you, as a British subject, from reading Shaw by way of Gutenberg?

Wugo 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mystic?

Wos 'ee a mysteek? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.2.70.132 (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I see this as graffiti. can the section be deleted? Wugo 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

I have reverted an edit of Shaw's nationality back to "Ïrish." Always a British subject, he was born in Dublin, Ireland and described himself as Irish. Wugo 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He was born in the (at the time) British city of Dublin, as a British subject. He left Dublin for England long before the creation of the Irish Free State and remained a British Subject and resident for the rest of his life (and thereafter). Surely he was British?!

Changed "nationality" from "Irish" to "Irish / British" as I think that is both more correct and more informative.

Evolution

Shaw strongly advocated his personal theory of evolution. According to him evolution was directed by a "vital force" intent on steadily progressing toward perfection. Lamarkian in some aspects, pure Shavian in others, his theory was utter nonsense in the light of current scientific understanding. Still, in "Back to Methuselah" and several other works, he strives to promulgate the theory.

My question: Should Shaw's views on evolution be added to the article? I will welcome anyone's opinion. Wugo 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Pointless internal links

I am removing useless and distracting internal links from this article. Wugo 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

This new revision should conform to Wiki standards; please point out deficiencies. I have used a few useful internal links to support the content. Appropriate formal citations exist, or will be added, in the Biographic section.Wugo 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes relating to online Novels

I notice that User:DonFB made some edits to the list of online novels and that User:Wugo has reverted them. At the moment, the arrangement is illogical. I propose that we decide either to keep the section entitled "Works available online" and only include works that fulfill that criterion, which follows DonFB's observation that the other novels are not available as of yet and that there is a complete list of the novels further up in the article (addressing Wugo's concern); or, we should retitle this section to something along the lines of Complete Works. I'm not sure how the current linking to external editions is arranged (I gather the numbers are generated by not giving the link a title), but it could bear improvement (which I'm happy to do if there is a consensus); the numbers in square brackets makes them look like overinflated footnotes. Is there perhaps a small icon from the commons collection that could be placed at the end of the titles with online editions, and the link could be attached to the icon? Not sure if that's technically possible on here or not. If not, I think [online] or something along those lines would be better than the numbers.

Personally, I think the latter is the preferable option, since a complete list of works is useful. I notice that the link to the novels doesn't seem to work - did it get altered in the changes?

Thanks, DionysosProteus 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DonFB was right and I was wrong. The Online Novels section should include only novels avaiable on line. I have restored the changes made by him and told him so on his discussion page. A list of complete works would be cumbersome, I think; please look at refs [8] and [9] in George Bernard Shaw and see if you agree. Perhaps a sub-page? Wugo 14:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty substantial, I agree. I think it might be worth adding that chronology from the notes to the external links section as well, but perhaps you are right about not including on the page. Since there seem to be so many articles on his works in place, perhaps a navigation box for shaw might be appropriate. I'll put one together; see what you think.

DionysosProteus 09:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done, the external link to Works! I had thought of something like a navigation box to Wiki articles on Shaw, but I lack the skill to make one. Please scan those articles for quality; some seem inferior to me. Would listing them imply a certain obligation to bring them up to standard? (I quail, and turn a rather pretty green.) Wugo 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I fear so, yes. I did a couple for Brecht and still find myself immersed in trying to do something with the main article. Perhaps a navibox is more a statement of ambition than a firm promise? DionysosProteus 01:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

DP, I'll look at Brecht to learn the boding snares. I must tell you: There is an anomaly in your external link George Bernard Shaw that makes an "f" look wrong. I've tried and failed to fix it. Can you tell me how? (The link works as intended.)Wugo 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Which external link where, exactly? I've just realized too that there is already a template for Shaw's plays in existence, which User:Yossarian made... I hadn't taken a look at any of the individual articles, so hadn't noticed it. DionysosProteus 02:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In George Bernard Shaw the first external link — International Shaw Society, includes a chronology of Shaw's works — the "f" in "of" has a little tail. If you can't see it, perhaps my computer is the culprit.

Oh, that template! I'd seen it, but my awareness failed to be aroused; I have much to learn about the ways of Wiki. I'll find a model in another article and try adding the template to George Bernard Shaw. Please stand by for corrective action. Wugo 12:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see... I was completely blind to the presence of the 'of'. No, it looks normal and tail-less on mine. I'm running firefox, but I checked in IE too, and same there, so I suspect it is a system thing at your end.

I adapted the Brecht templates from the ones made for the Greek dramatists, which had the cool little pictures. You can find the list here. I cut and pasted and fiddled around a little; only really needed to know basic wiki. For the Shaw, I was thinking of using the Shaw in 1934 looking to the right picture, and trying to put it on the right of the template, so he's looking at the list of his plays. I also kind of like the way that the classical templates are statues and busts of the dramatists, which I mimicked for the Brecht and Lorca ones. I don't know, it seemed to give them a kind of weightiness, as if looking back to the distant past. I would suggest either retaining something like the grouping by published collection, but not necessarily labeling as such, or chronological (that is, not so keen on alphabetical). Just some thoughts, anyhow. DionysosProteus 13:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I did an experimental paste of Template:George Bernard Shaw in the "Plays" section and disliked the results: Much space consumed for scanty information. My skills must considerably improved before I'll attempt editing a template. Wugo 13:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of plays template possibility

Here's one I've put together based on existing templates. I've taken the chronology from this web site, which the article provides; some of the play title links might need adjusting. Other possibilities for the colour can be found at web colors. A possibility? If the many red links are too distracting, they could be de-linkified until an article is created for each (assuming that will happen at some point in the future).

DionysosProteus 22:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

With the plays without articles de-wikilinked, it would look like this:

I like the simplicity of your template and think it would be a useful addition to the article. I believe the color-scheme you've chosen will present no difficulty to the color-blind, but will defer to a more informed opinion. I pray you'll quash the red links because they are distracting (and they nag me for attention). If and when you add your template to the article, please remove the one existing in the section headed Plays. I put it there experimentally and saw no good reason to delete it. Wugo 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Without a by-your-leave I've moved your template to the end of Plays, where it seems less obtrusive, and have removed the duplicated picture. If you prefer it at the top, please reverse my action. Wugo 15:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality?

Shaw was born in the United Kingdom, as that included Ireland at the time. He lived all his life in England. Yet he's listed as Irish. Why that? Why not some reasonable compromise? I notice now that Oscar Wilde has also been changed to Irish (it used to be more neutral, something like British-Irish or Irish-born). This nationalism really is getting to Wikipedia. Please try to be objective. 128.208.5.131 07:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. He left Dublin over 40 years before independence when it was still very much a part of Britain. I can find nothing Shaw himself wrote that describes himself as Irish, he did however write plenty on how the Commonwealth should be strengthened indicating he was rather British.--Gothicform 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Shaw called himself Irish. One example is in a letter printed by the Manchester Guardian on 22 July 1916, and New York American on 13 August 1916, which says, in part, "As several English newspapers have answered the above question vehemently in the affirmative, may I, as an Irishman, be allowed to balance their judgment by a reminder of certain considerations, easily overlooked in England, which seem glaringly obvious in Ireland." (See http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/gb_shaw_letter.htm ) Other instances are easy to find. Wugo 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true, in Shaw's time, the Irish were British subjects. Their ethnicity was distinct, however. G. K. Chesterton discussed this matter at length in http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw/The_Irishman

Wugo 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the republic of ireland is no longer part of the UK and the fact that Shaw was born in dublin in which he had said he was irish, i believe that he is no longer a british subject but an irishman as he always had been. p.s ireland is not in britain, so why is deemed that an irish person to be british? Pathfinder2006 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On page xi of Shaw’s introduction to the first German edition of ‘’The Perfect Wagnerite’’ he says “For their (the musicians’) sakes Germany stands consecrated as the Holy Land of the capitalist age, just as Italy, for its painters’ sake is the Holy Land of the early unvulgarized Renascence; France, for its builders’ sakes, of the age of Christian chivalry and faith; and Greece, for its sculptors’ sakes, of the Periclean age.

These holy lands are my fatherlands: in them alone am I truly at home: all my work is but to bring the whole world under this sanctification. Wugo (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oscar and Nobel Prize

"He remains the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize (1925) for his contribution to literature and an Oscar (1938) for Pygmalion."

I've edited this to:

"He is one of only two people to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize (1925) and an Oscar (1938), the other being Al Gore. These were awarded for Shaw's contribution to literature and the film Pygmalion, respectively."

Please revise if necessary (particularly in terms of citation). Metathesiophobia 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gore starred in An Inconvenient Truth, he did not win an Oscar for it. This is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.28.83 (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it back to the original. AMPAS records give sole credit for An Inconvenient Truth's Oscar win to Director Davis Guggenheim. Al Gore is not an Oscar winner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.27.235 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• My mistake. Cumulus Clouds 04:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will remove the statement that Al Gore is not winner of both Oscar and Nobel. The same thing could be said of anyone else, excepting Shaw. Wugo 12:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. No one objected. I'll remove the Gore/Oscar/Nobel statement. Wugo 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Supporter of Hitler?

Should something be said of his initial support of Hitler? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thprfssnl (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Islam

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

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

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

The quotations favoring Islam have been posted in the GBS article before and can be found in a plethora of Islamic webpages, e.g. [9]. Sometimes, there is a supporting reference, "Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8 (Singapore: 1936)". I have spent time searching for it, with no success at all, and suspect it is fictitious. Shaw was never knighted.Wugo 00:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Lee Kong Chian Reference Library in Singapore archives The Genuine Islam. Jane Wee, their Reference Librarian, tells me "I ran through the Vol. 1, No. 8 (Aug 1936) issue and one issue before and after that but do not find any article by Sir George Bernard Shaw."Wugo 15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Shaw's poems

I removed the Poems section because it contained only one unreferenced verse: Living Graves. The poem appears at [10]. I'm not sure Shaw wrote it; it falls well below his standard. Wugo (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Shaw's novels

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

GA review

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

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

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

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

All of the proposed changes that I fully understand have merit. For others I will need further explanation. I'll ask for explanations when I address the changes. I'll begin by providing sources more palatable to scholars. However, I'm eager to preserve the external linkages to the sources I have cited: they will be useful to the ordinary readers who have no access the great libraries that academicians take for granted.

I did not anticipate such an extensive overhaul, although I welcome it. Previous commitments will keep me from providing it in the time alloted. Can the deadline be moved forward by at least two weeks? Wugo (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course; take all the time you need. I've mostly completed the copy-edit and formatting sweep, but I'll have another look for things I've missed. The external links in the references are necessary for online sources, so don't remove those; I was only referring to the ELs in the prose of the article ("Works available online" section) that need removing per WP:EL. I have the article watchlisted so I can keep an eye out for your questions. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

You can use Wikipedia:Citation templates for a guide; it's so much easier to obtain standardization with templates, but many prefer different formatting. Whatever works, as long as it's consistent. If you want to continue using templates, however, just remove the fields that aren't being used and/or add the ones that are needed. In this case you could copy and paste the following:

<ref name="pease">{{cite book |last=Pease |first=Edward R. |coauthors=Paavo Cajander (trans.) |title=The History of the Fabian Society |year=2004 |publisher=Project Gutenberg | url=http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/3/7/1/13715/13715.htm | accessdate=2008-03-30}}</ref>

You can see that I've changed some of the info you wrote; that is because when you provide a link you are saying that you used that link as the source. That means that the publisher, year, coauthors, etc, must match what the URL says in order for it to be verifiable. So I changed the publisher and year because they need to match the info given for the URL you supply, which is Project Gutenberg and 2004. There is also no ISBN included at Gutenberg, but the addition of a translator. The new ref would look like this:

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

"Canary fangs", I like that. :) Citing Gutenberg is fine and dandy since they in turn note where they got their version from. It's quite reliable as far as internet sources go. Be careful with the self-published sites, however, and I left an internal note for ref 32; the link appears to be dead, so a replacement is needed. María (habla conmigo) 00:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean Ref 33: Public Trustee. The rascals have reorganized the service and given it a new URL—http://www.courtfunds.gov.uk/ I changed the URL and deleted your note before I tried to use the URL to get Shaw-specific information. No luck. I'll have to find a secondary reference or retract the statement. I apologize for the premature deletion of your internal note. Wugo (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 33; sorry about that. The hidden comment is still there, however, as is the broken link. A secondary ref would be great. María (habla conmigo) 12:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Archiving?

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

I know the article is growing long and have been concerned about it. If archiving will help without reducing useful content, I hope you will perform it. I'll not attempt the deed myself because I have no notion how its done and do not understand its implications. Wugo (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the talk page, which someone archived soon after I posed the question above. Articles themselves cannot be archived, just cut down extensively. :) The length of this one is not bad, however, so don't worry about it just yet. María (habla conmigo) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I undid Wugo's undo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do not need to upload sources, but it is important that everything is verifiable; full publication details are necessary and links from reliable sources are a plus. In my opinion, I think that the bulk of the information you added to the article gives undue weight to one specific issue and may violate neutral point of view policy. I see no problem with keeping the fact that he was a supporter of eugenics in the article (that seems indisputable), and I have no wish at all to sugarcoat things, but surely one entire paragraph, that basically repeats itself with several different quotes, is overkill. Perhaps you can cut down the information to its bare necessities and integrate it somewhere within the body? Wugo would be the best judge for where to put it. My concern is that the article is currently undergoing a review to become a Good Article and therefore its quality and POV is important. María (habla conmigo) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In saying "apparently fictitious" I meant that, after diligent searching, I found no evidence the articles you quote actually exist. Benedict Nightengale is a living author, but the title you cite is not included in the listings of his works. (By the way: What and where is Times Newspapers, Ltd. ?) I have several comprehensive listings of works by Shaw, but none mention Prefaces. Where did you find the book and who was its publisher? Is there really a newspaper called The Daily Express? If so, did you see the report you mention? You are on better ground with On the Rocks; that's real enough. But I own a a copy of that play, complete with preface, and find nothing in the contents to justify your statements.

If it is possible for you to verify the credibility of your sources it will make your contribution easier to accept, both for me and all the other editors. Wugo (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Benedict Nightingale piece certainly exists, the correct citation is "Nightingale, Benedict. "Shaw - and a lesson in evil; Viewpoint." The Times (London, England) (August 29, 2000)" It was a feature article in the Times newspaper and can be read in their archive which is available on-line but on a subscription site. 91.108.52.57 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This man was really a great eugenist. In fact, such as ecology today, eugenics was a left's movement. For many years, George Bernard Shaw also gave his support to Benito Mussolini, another eugenist.Agre22 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

The claim that he proposed the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve the problem is based on an article that does not cite a verifiable resource.(citation 66) I think it should be removed. Tavanarasi (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked up a some of the author's work: he writes prolifically for many main-stream publications, but I didn't really find anything with which to dismiss the above assessment. New source substituted.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The article now reads: "Not all contemporary commentators noticed that this was an example of Shaw['s satire]". Seemingly, not all current commentators, either. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Still, overall the Eugenics section is very weak. The first sentence is a claim with no citation. the second sentence is about something Shaw said in a meeting which may or may not be a joke that people may or may not have perceived correctly. Eugenics section does not qualify as part of this Article as it is. Shaw's thought and writings on Biology and human breeding deserve its place in this article. However they should not be confined to Eugenics and certainly not to those two sentences. I propose that this section should be removed completely and rewritten as his views on Biology. I believe the prefaces of apple cart, Back to Methuselah and the book Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism are good sources for this section.Tavanarasi (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavanarasi (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tavanarasi re. the Eugenics section. The quote re. eliminating people who cannot justify their existence was part of a polemical and hyperbolic argument with G.K. Chesterson concerning private property, and should not be read as a statement of Shaw's own position. See Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton: Plays and Chesterton on Shaw By G. K. Chesterton p. 553. The source cited in the wiki entry for this quote is a film on the Soviet Union, where it is also taken out of context for polemical effect. Shaw was definitely an iconoclast and Eugenicist of some sort, but far more support is needed to establish that he actually advocated what he rhetorically proposed in this quote. --Rural woman (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, that quote has nothing whatsoever to do with Shaw's beliefs concerning eugenics. The topic of the debate with Chesterson was private property, not eugenics. Use of the quote doesn't meet minimum standards for valid argumentation or use of sources. The quote doesn't belong in this piece and should be deleted. A decently-researched section on his views on eugenics and/or biology is needed, not this hogwash.--Rural woman (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

All these criticisms are valid, but this should be a call for improving the section, not deleting it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is not a call for deletion. Let me try to reiterate what I propose: a) Changing the topic name from Eugenics to Biology. b) Removal of the sentences currently under the topic Eugenics based on my arguments above. I think we agree that these sentences do not qualify as Encyclopedic content.Tavanarasi (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 81.214.255.101 (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to a point in an edit summary I have strengthened the source regarding Shaw's satire. I believe the text accurately reflects the source, but if there are concerns please raise them here; don't just delete. I Recognize that this is far from the last word on this: the section still has a some way to go.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a sensitive subject and should be treated with care. It's very easy to put forward notions based on quotations grabbed out of context and it's unfair to quote a single sentence from a speech or discussion to claim that Shaw held a particular view, when in fact he may have been using satire or parody to point out exactly what he did NOT support or adhere to.Hohenloh ⁺ 19:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the current piecemeal edits aren't getting us that much further. What's needed is someone with a good grasp of the issue to do a balanced rewrite to include a balanced summary of the whole issue.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Extreme political views?

I remember seeing a documentary about the Fabian socialists and there was a rather disturbing quote attributed to Shaw which describes the goals of this version of socialism. It said that in the ideal society, governed according to the principles of Fabian socialism, no one would be allowed to subsist below a certain standard of living, even if they so wished, and, even more disturbingly, everyone who could not be made useful to the social order would be exterminated. If anyone has studied this unsettling aspect of Shaw's political ideology, I think it would be an interesting addition to the article. If an article on Wagner mentions anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies, then surely the kind of extreme socialist views attributed to Shaw warrant some kind of mention? Ilmateur (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Shaw's politics were those of the Fabian Society, of which he was a co-founder. In his latter years he supported Stalin's government in the USSR, seeing it as a model for rulers everywhere. If he had known the actualities, I'm sure he would have recanted, just as he did when he learned the truth about Hitler and Mussolini. His prime error seems to have been believing strong-men could be trusted to be benevolent and wise. Wugo (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

H. G. Wells was so eugenist and communist as George Bernard Shaw. In fact, George Bernard Shaw was also a fascist, for more than ten years.Agre22 (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

No offense to communists and socialists...but calling Shaw a fascist too is redundant. Communism/socialism/fascism = just about the same thing. Fascism seems to be less focused on the whole international/world wide revolution than communism/socialism is. 97.104.77.160 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing problem

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

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

Cancel! All is well; now it shows. I had mutilated all references beyond #34 by failing to close with </ref> Wugo (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Man, I do that all the time! María (habla conmigo) 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

'Tis cursed, we are. I have similar results when I try to fry an egg. Wugo (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN status

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

You bring welcome news, María! I've supplied the citations specified except for one to support "Shaw's Museum in Dublin." There are links for it aplenty but their tone is too commercial for my taste. I've deleted that entire comment and will restore it only when I find a suitable supporting source. I hope to defer expanding the biography until after Good Article status has been granted because it may take a month or more to get the material assembled and well ordered. Wugo (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the biography undertaking may turn out to be epic in scope, but it would be welcome. I had to do something similar with Emily Dickinson after it passed GAN, only it was the other way around: I had to expand and reconfigure (with the help of another editor, of course, I never could have done it alone) everything that came after the Bio. Yeesh.

After a little cleaning up and the addition of citations, I think this article has vastly improved and now fulfills the GA criteria. Congrats! It is well on its path to bigger and better things: keep working on it, maybe go for a Peer Review when you're ready, and hopefully I'll see this listed at FAC one day. If you need any help with silly MOS stuff, a future review, or just someone to sniff out those unclosed ref-tags, you know where to find me. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:George Bernard Shaw/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references plange 01:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC) I have increased the number of references and linked them to full texts when such are available on-line. I am concerned about the spate of articles synopsizing individual plays: Nearly all of them include brief biographies of Shaw, which makes the repetitious. Should they be amended? Wugo 04:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)