Talk:George Bernard Shaw/Archive 3

Shaw and "the religion of Muhammad" revisited
Someone has "re-discovered" this - there is no evidence it is any less a forgery than it was in the 1930s when it first surfaced. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on George Bernard Shaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140725205919/http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/shawphotos to http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/shawphotos

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nationality
I don't believe Irish is acceptable for nationality. I recognise Bernard Shaw was born in Ireland. I'm not raising this to deprive Ireland of Bernard Shaw. Here are the reasons I believe Irish is not appropriate:

I think we should discuss whether any alternatives would be more suitable. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He was born in Ireland, but it was at the time an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
 * Birthplace does not = nationality, anyway. His birthplace is not a relevant part of his notability. He was notable for his work in England
 * WP:OPENPARA states "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable...Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability
 * Suggesting birthplace = nationality would mean John McCain was Panamanian, Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard are British, Peter Hain and Richard Dawkins are Kenyan and Andrew Bonar Law was Canadian. Such a concept is racist.
 * The Nobel Prize Committee lists him as British
 * He was most probably a British citizen (almost certainly, since he was apparently offered a knighthood)
 * He was a Councillor in London. He lived most of his life in England.
 * The Encyclopedia of World Biography describes him as British
 * Bernard Shaw was consistently critical of Irish nationality stating "‘There is no Irish race any more than there is an English race" and described the notion of an Irish/English man as "that hollowest of fictions". Further statements he made "Nationalism must now be added to the refuse pile of superstitions. We are now citizens of the world" and "Nationalism stands between Ireland and the light of the world"
 * The British Museum, with which he was involved, describes him as "Britain's great dramatists"
 * The above evidence, particularly his own views, would mean if he was living, describing him as Irish would be a serious BLP violation.


 * Glad you brought this up here (not before time). Have you read the discussion at the top of the page under "Irish?" - answers to points that came up last time might be helpful. In general, of course he WAS "British" as the term was defined at the time. Under that same definition Tony Abbot and Julia Gillard would also have been classed as British - as would all "native-born" Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders, as well as Scots, Irish and Welsh. Until quite recently "British" was legally "non-mutually exclusive" with many different nationalities. In that sense it was irrelevant where you were born, but a matter of living "under the British flag". Old-fashioned and irrelevant in the case of Abbot and Gillard, perhaps - but then Shaw was born when the British Empire was very real, and "British" did have that connotation. It's just not that simple, really. On the whole I'd like to go with precedent, and keeping things consistent. And above all, sticking with a past consensus - at least until there is a clear new consensus to the contrary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not really true. George Bernard Shaw was not born in the Empire. Ireland was not part of the Empire. It was an integral part of the United Kingdom. In addition, Abbott and Gillard were born in England and Wales, respectively, not the Empire. Also, you unfortunately have not addressed the above points that I have made. AusLondonder (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the United kingdom and its "component countries" were not part of the Empire then what the stuff were they? The very core of the Empire by any definition I've ever seen. I am actually trying not to repeat what I and others said in the "Irish" thread until we get a proper debate going- I am waiting for a few other editors to chime in - they will, I suspect, very soon. I may even run a little circular past some folk who might be interested. Consensus, which we need to change the article, cannot be changed by just you and me, for obvious reasons. Add colons to indent your contributions by the way. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Shaw described himself as Irish. "I am an Irishman and I have not forgotten". (Holroyd, p. 468) and in 1935 he registered as a citizen of the Irish Free State. He must therefore be regarded as Irish. On the other hand he was also a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great and Britain and Ireland, and so can also be described as "British" in terms of citizenship (not technically correct – "UK citizen" would be more accurate, but a bit wordy and "British" is clear enough). I think the agreed earlier version "Irish-British" covered the ground reasonably satisfactorily. But let us not operate in a vacuum. How do other works of reference introduce him?
 * Britannica has him as "George Bernard Shaw (Irish dramatist and critic)";
 * the ODNB as a matter of policy for all its biographees dodges the matter of nationality and just gives place of birth;
 * The Chambers Biographical Dictionary, a much-used standby, has him as "Shaw, George Bernard 1856-1950, Irish dramatist and critic and Nobel Prize winner";
 * of the Oxford Reference Shelf available online those that mention his nationality at all include
 * "Shaw, George Bernard (1856–1950) Irish novelist, playwright, journalist, cultural critic, political theorist, pundit, and public personality" (The Oxford Encyclopedia of Theatre and Performance);
 * "Shaw, George Bernard (1856–1950) Irish dramatist, critic", (Oxford World Encyclopedia);
 * "Shaw, (George) Bernard (b Dublin, 26 July 1856; d Ayot St Lawrence, Herts., 2 Nov. 1950). Irish dramatist and music critic" (Oxford Companion to Music) ; and
 * "Shaw George Bernard ( 1856–1950), Irish playwright and critic" (Oxford Companion to Shakespeare).
 * Some other Oxford reference books follow the ODNB line and avoid the matter altogether. I can find none that refer to him as British. "Irish" seems to be the preferred description – his own choice and that of those books that choose to mention the matter at all. –  Tim riley  talk    10:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Shaw considered himself Irish: "Eternal is the fact that the human creature born in Ireland and brought up in its air is Irish. I have lived for twenty years in Ireland and for seventy-two in England; but the twenty came first, and in Britain I am still a foreigner and shall die one." quoted in Ireland in Mind, Alice Leccese Powers, ed. (2000) Hohenloh + 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair to say he made a number of seemingly contradictory statements about nationality. I would support Irish/British. AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As the article mentions, Shaw only accepted the Nobel prize (he rejected all other honours bar the Oscar) because his wife pointed out it would be honouring Ireland. Straw Cat (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Debate on Bernard Shaw's nationality.
Was he "Irish" or "British" or do we need to define his nationality in some other way? A debate on the subject, to reconsider a long-standing consensus that he was Irish, has started at talk:George Bernard Shaw. Just in case you're interested. Current comments are at "Nationality", at the foot of the page - although an earlier thread at "Irish"? may also be relevant. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting question. The earlier thread is most certainly relevant. The current page says "Irish / British" under nationality in the infobox. Need it be restricted to one? - Paul2520 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Added as British, this claim he was not an Irish national, as accurate as any POV. In the days of Shaw being Irish and British were not mutually exclusive. There is an essay on UK nationalities, but it is a mere essay. The stem is modern usage of nationality and citizenship do not translate well from history. While we can discuss the ins-and-outs, it is sourced in the lede as Irish. Murry1975 (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update!!! The source doesnt lead to a cite supporting the claim. Murry1975 (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that source was for British, but someone changed to Irish and didn't remove the British source. AusLondonder (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a shrewd point about applying modern labels to historical figures. In terms of citizenship Beethoven was not German nor Michelangelo Italian,there being no nation-states of Germany or Italy in their lifetimes, but they are always, rightly, labelled German and Italian respectively. The case of Shaw is complicated by 20th-century developments: a UK citizen all his life, an Irish citizen from 1935 until his death, and a self-proclaimed Irishman all his life. On balance I think it would be best to describe him in the lead and the info-box as Irish tout court. Further research into how other works of reference label him produces the following:
 * Shaw, George Bernard, 1856–1950, Irish playwright and critic (The Hutchinson Encyclopedia)
 * Shaw, George Bernard (1856–1950), Irish-born playwright, critic and polemicist (Cambridge Guide to Theatre)
 * Shaw, George Bernard (1856–1950), Irish dramatist, critic, and man of letters, born in Dublin (The Macmillan Encyclopedia)
 * Shaw, George Bernard (1856–1950), Irish dramatist and critic (Bloomsbury Biographical Dictionary of Quotations)
 * Shaw, George Bernard (1856–1950), Irish dramatist, critic, and member of the Fabian Society (Philip's Encyclopedia)
 * Shaw, George Bernard (1856–1950), Irish dramatist, critic and social reformer (Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought)
 * Shaw, George Bernard (1856–1950), Irish dramatist and critic (Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language)
 * Shaw, George Bernard (1856–1950), Irish dramatist (Oxford Dictionary of Quotations)
 * About the same number of reference works do not introduce him by nationality; none that I can find introduce him as "British". I think we should follow the lead of all these reference books, and those listed in the previous section, above, and mention Shaw as Irish in the lead and the I-B. –  Tim riley  talk    12:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Tim's well worded judgement here should form the basis for our consensus. The clincher is really is that list of "other reference works". Wikipedia is not in the business of being "odd man out" (limiting although that sometimes may be). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Nobel Prize and Oscar-winning"
The lead begins with "George Bernard Shaw (26 July 1856 – 2 November 1950) was a Nobel Prize and Oscar-winning Irish playwright, critic and socialist whose influence on Western theatre, culture and politics stretched from the 1880s to his death in 1950." I had previously removed "Nobel Prize and Oscar-winning" but it was re-inserted. I'd seriously remove any kind of "...-winning" description because it clutters the opening sentence with unnecessary information that is mentioned later in the lead and in this case, prioritizes something that is not of major importance to the person in question (especially considering Shaw himself mostly disapproved of accolades). and other editors, any thoughts on this?  κ  ατάστασ   η  17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A few. Normally I dislike articles strewn with “award-winning”s (sometimes, I suspect, put there by the subject's PRs). But I would make an exception for Nobels – after all, not an awful lot of people in the world get one of those. Nor Oscars. And after a quick random look at articles on Nobel laureates, I notice that in those of Einstein, Yeats, O’Neill, and Faulkner the Nobel is mentioned in the first para of the lead. So there it should stay. The other mention in the lead is not repetitious, because it rightly draws attention to Shaw’s uniqueness in bagging both Nobel and Oscar. Also, we do not allow a subject’s opinions to dictate the article – otherwise we really should rewrite this whole article using Shaw’s peculiar spelling system! Straw Cat (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The Nobel is okay. But not the Oscar. Articles about Oscar winners mostly don't reference the Oscar in the lead paragraph, usually because their career is broader than an Oscar. The fact that Shaw won both awards is, to me, sort of a trivia. Why is that important in his career as a writer? I believe the lead should describe his career and legacy, and awards should stay only the last paragraph of the lead. I just find that the lead sentence does not have to begin with that. Cheers,  κ  ατάστασ   η  14:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that awards should be confined to the lead last para is not, as I've shown, that of editors of other articles on Nobel laureates. And as for the additional two words and a hyphen about the Oscar, it is notable and significant because it illustrates Shaw's peculiar position and success (often forgotten today) as both a radical intellectual and a popular writer - a common thing in France with people like Sartre but not so common in Anglophone cultures. But as you have said, we should hear from other editors. Straw Cat (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In the Albert Einstein article, true, awards are mentioned in the first paragraph, but the lead sentence does not go like "a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist". But yes, I would appreciate if other editors would weigh in as well. Thank you for the comments. Cheers,  κ  ατάστασ   η  15:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on George Bernard Shaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080228201521/http://www.lse.ac.uk:80/library/archive/gutoho/shaw_george_bernard.htm to http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/gutoho/shaw_george_bernard.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070520023249/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk:80/Jshaw.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jshaw.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Article reconstruction
Tim riley and I have begun an exercise designed to bring this article up to the highest WP standard. Its ancient classification as a "Good Article" is pretty meaningless; it is currently in a rather poor state, seriously under-referenced and its structure looks haphazard. Any editor who feels able to contribute to this project is invited to join in – suggestions will be welcome.

We envisage a broad structure that has worked well in other biographies, thus: Life; Works and; Appraisal/legacy. This will involve expansion, rewriting and reorganisation of material, a process that will extend over several weeks. During that period the article may look a little odd at times, but readers will be alerted by  the underconstruction banner and we'll obviously  try to minimise the disruption. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, improvements by any editor are to be welcomed, but just now there appears to be a large amount of editing and deleting of the article without explanation or rationale. I hope that any proposed changes will be discussed and consensus reached, as normal. Straw Cat (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In preparing the current text so far we have, as usual in pre-FAC overhauls, listed all the cited statements that are in the existing article, and take care that they are addressed. We envisage a Life and Works structure, with the literary side of things addressed in the latter, but we have yet to start on that. The present drive is to get the Life section complete. I don't think we've missed out any cited biographical info from the existing article so far, but we'll review towards the end of the overhaul. Some literary references will find their way into the Works section.  Tim riley  talk    15:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * During the article's major revamp, there is bound to be some moving around and reorganisation of  material, wnich may mean the temporary disappearance of text that will be restored in context later. I have also removed a certain amount of the uncited material, which is unlikely to be restored. As to the Irish Revival material reinstated by Straw Cat, I don't think Shaw's involvement with the Irish Literary Revival movement warrants a section to itself. The section is in two parts, the first of which (down to citation 110) could properly be incorporated into the Works commentary section which as Tim points out, hasn't been started  yet. The second part of the section, after the citation, has already been moved, in slightly abridged form, to the "World War; Ireland" section later in the article, so currently those details are in twice. I'm happy to leave the first part where it is, for further discussion as to its best location, but the second part should be re-deleted, as it is obviously wrong to include the same material twice. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and I don't wish to be rude, but when I see a sentence starting, essentially "X and I have decided that this article's Good Article designation is a pile of **** and we are going to throw out lots of previous work. Other editors' applications to apply to join this exclusive club will be duly considered" I Immediately wonder if, however eminent, those editors ought, when they have a few spare minutes, to re-acquaint themselves with WP:OWNERSHIP. Just sayin', like ... Straw Cat (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been nominated since the latter part of last year for the removal of its GA status, but by all means weigh in at the discussion if you think it meets the GA criteria. As you see, above, we have asked everyone to join us in our endeavours to improve the article. As we have explained, we have not sought to remove cited material.  Tim riley  talk    08:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would add that there is often   tension between WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:BOLD, but it is better to assume good faith rather than to complain about exclusive clubs etc. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, in the spirit of WP:BOLD I will revert any of your deletions that you fail to explain and justify. Obviously, uncited material needs attention. I do assume good faith and hope you do too; if you wish to be helpful, why not set out your proposed changes beforehand here, and how they are more conducive to GA status. By the way I have a degree in English and Irish Literature; perhaps you can let us know your academic or other qualifications re this article. Straw Cat (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course we both AGF, and I can assure you, apropos your comment above, that nobody is accusing you of WP:OWN when you come to the defence of your contribution, which is admirably cited. It is the acres of uncited stuff that are the first problem: it has no place in any WP article, let alone a GA (which is principally why the article is up for demotion) and still less a potential FA. The "citation needed" tags have been in place for many weeks now and nobody has felt moved to add citations for any of them. I hope very much that you will approve of our efforts as the overhaul continues, but that will be for you to say, naturally. Meanwhile, as we have repeatedly said, all assistance in upgrading the text will be very welcome.  Tim riley  talk    15:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Straw Cat: In case you've forgotten, this is how the article looked before the recent work began. Specific problems in that version included:
 * Lack of a discernible logical structure: sections seem to have been added and placed in any old order. There are two sections headed "Photography". Biographical information is scattered all over the place, without any clear or continuous chronology.
 * Large tracts  uncited, including whole sections.
 * Undue detail/attention in some areas. The "Novels" section, almost entirely uncited, is about 750 words long, around 10 percent of the entire wordcount! Novels were an early, and relatively minor element of Shaw's output, and should have proportionate attention in the article.
 * "Short stories" section: A medley of information, largely uncited, only a fraction of which has any relevance to Shaw's short stories
 * List of works: Not inappropriate within this article, as there is an existing subarticle List of works by George Bernard Shaw.

These are a few examples. The article was in this sort of state for years, not for lack of edit activity – averaging around 50 a month, involving numerous editors. But there was no plan, no coordination of effort, no attempt at cohesion. That's what is beginning now – someone had to start it, or we'd be faffing around for more months to come. Let's see how things develop over the next few weeks; only you can decide whether, and how, you want to help this process. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer review
All contributors to the article (and of course anyone else) will be most welcome at the peer review, where views on the present text and how we can further improve it will be gratefully received. It would be good to get GBS up to Featured Article status, and the peer review is an important preliminary.  Tim riley  talk    17:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Article structure: some thoughts and ideas
The tentative structure being utilised during the revamp is that common to many WP biographies of literary or musical subjects: a chronological "Life" section, a "Works" section, an "Appraisal/Legacy" section, and possibly additional minor sections particular to the subject. To date the "Life" section is well under way, though it will no doubt need much further amendment and pruning. Here are a few ideas as to the possible nature of the "Works" section:
 * Subdivisions into genres, possibly "Plays; "Polemics (including political writings)"; "Criticism", "Fiction"; and "Other writing". There is perhaps a case for including fiction with "Other writings", although opinions may differ on that.
 * Each subdivision should be in summary form,  rather than a work-by-work analysis that would stretch the article to impossible lengths. There are, after all, individual WP articles for all the main works. Some of the major works can be used illustratively, but not exhaustively, to show   what Shaw was attempting to achieve within that genre.  I realise that these suggested genre headings are not mutually exclusive and sometimes merge, e.g. plays and polemics. Suggestions for  alternative ideas would be welcome.
 * An essential adjunct to the revised "Works" section will be a complete list of works within the linked subarticle. I am working separately on this.

It would be good to have editors' views. I have not given much thought to the character of the Appraisal or Legacy section, beyond that it ought to give a clear idea of what is meant by "Shavianism", possibly Shaw's most enduring cultural legacy. Another topic for discussion in due course.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That all seems on the right lines to me. The Plays sub-section needs its own internal structure, I think, if it is not to be unwieldy. I am rather drawn towards grouping the plays by decade, if only because grouping them by genre invites the question of what genre any Shaw play is in.
 * While I have been going through the Life section I have been struck by the number of odds and ends that don't obviously fit in anywhere but could do with a mention, and Polemics isn't the obvious place for some of them. The list includes
 * Hatred of italics and insistence on emphasising words by s p a c I n g the letters.
 * Allergy to apostrophes in contractions
 * American spelling
 * Other odd spellings (e.g. Shakespear)
 * Membership of the British Interplanetary Society
 * Amateur photographer
 * Jaeger woollen obsession
 * More suited to a Polemics section:
 * Opposition to immunisation
 * Views on anti-Semitism
 * Views on eugenics
 * Phonetic spelling faddist (though this could go under Legacy)
 * Some of these are already, some at great length, in the miscellaneous sections of the present article.

Them's my thoughts at present.  Tim riley  talk    20:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * More thought needed on some of these. Maybe in Appraisal we need a "Personal idiosyncracies" subsection? I don't think we need the length with which some of them are presently treated. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How about just a paragraph on "stylistic idiosyncracies" somewhere in the "Works" part of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Content comment
On George Bernard Shaw page there is a shocking misinformation that must be deleted: The sentence that Shaw supported dictatorship and Hitler! In fact it is quite opposite: According to Augustine Hamon in his book: The twentieth century Moliere, to protect the weak and to defend them against the strong was a passion for Bernard Shaw. Shaw was against all forms of violence and he was exceptionally good natured and loved humanity. Shaw detested lies and was able to detect a lie very easily. Having detected it, he laid it bare, to the great discomfort of the liar. WriterMB (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean ISBN 9781330642085, The Twentieth Century Moliere: Bernard Shaw by Augustin Hamon? It looks like a reasonable source. What are the page number and the exact quote that support the material you would like to add? --John (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What evidence is there that George Bernard Shaw should be considered an activist?
Why is it correect to talk of Shaw as an activist in particular? Is there anything asside from party membership and writing plays containing his views etc? 78.69.217.113 (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OED definition: "A person engaged in or advocating vigorous political activity; an active campaigner." If you care to read the article you will see numerous examples of Shaw's activism. (Nb, "Bernard", not "Bernhard")  Tim riley  talk    12:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Would -in your opinion- this label also apply to Ayn Rand, considering that she; held political speeches, wrote books on politics, published political newsletters and campaigned for politicians?
 * 78.69.217.113 (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea. The name is vaguely familiar, but I know nothing about her.  Tim riley  talk    14:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * She is very controversial and mostly known to the far left-right and overly politically+philosophically interested. (Similar to Shaw in a sense) But if you were to make a decission based merely on the fact that someone had; held political speeches, written books on the philosophy and practicalities of politics, advocated a political system in all her works, published political newsletters and campaigned for politicians, would this be enought to qualify as an activist? 78.69.217.113 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It would seem so to me, but I suggest this would be better raised at Miss Rand's Wikipedia talk page.  Tim riley  talk    15:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It has been by me, but I'm met with fierce resistance. Would you mind, if this is not too much to ask, that you point me to the source given for Shaws "activism"? Maybee I'll be able to use that as evidence in my little debate about Rand. 78.69.217.113 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I can only suggest you read through the whole of the Shaw article, in which there are multiple instances of his activism, all of which are cited to reliable sources. I hope this helps you with your work on Miss Rand's article,  Tim riley  talk    13:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The contrast with Rand isn't helpful. Her right-wing individualism is almost by definition opposed to forms of collective action. Shaw on the other hand was actively involved with political movements and known as a significant political campaigner. No question he should be described in those terms.  • DP •  {huh?} 13:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Rand was not opposed to political movements and she campaigned for several politicians, she just thought they lacked base if they were not primarily philosophical in nature.
 * I read through most of the article. Was Shaw ever actually formally employed as an activist? In the Rand thread, there has been the argument made several times, that to have had occupation "x" Rand would have to have been employed by someone else as a "x".
 * 78.69.217.113 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You may like to re-read the OED definition of "activist", which is reproduced above. Employment by someone else is irrelevant.  Tim riley  talk    15:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Views on marriage
Shaw's unconventional views on marriage are missing from this article. FreeFlow99 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Box office success of Arms And The Man
There has been some controversy over whether the original London production of Arms And The Man turned a profit, as this article has been claiming. It is true that the production received attention, but I have looked at several sources and cannot conclude that it made money.

For instance, in Shaw: The Critical Heritage edited by T.F. Evans, published in 1976, we get this editorial comment about the 1894 production on page 60: "It ran for fifty performances and, while well received on the whole by the critics, it lost money."

And in C.B. Purdom's A Guide To The Plays Of Bernard Shaw published in 1963, on page 17, he writes of the 1894 production: "The work that was 'hardly a play' ran for eleven weeks, from 21 April, and Miss [Annie Elizabeth] Horniman [who provided the theatre] lost a lot of money, for there were almost empty houses, the receipts averaging £161 a week. Afterwards it was taken on tour for six months, but the play's popularity was still to come." Purdom also notes on page 18 that the play was presented soon after in New York by Richard Mansfield, where the "production had much critical praise but did not draw..."

Thus, I have removed references to the play making money. I have not gone all the way and said the play lost money, though that statement is probably justified.


 * I see the article has reverted back to the claim that the first production of Arms And The Man was a "box-office success." I don't want to get into a back-and-forth battle over this, but I still believe this information is questionable and probably incorrect.


 * Note in the first volume of Michael Holroyd's three-volume biography of Shaw, even Shaw claimed at the time that the "success" of the London production came about through financial loss. Yes, it's true that the production brought Shaw acclaim, and not-insignificant royalties, but this does not mean it turned a profit.

Picking up the thread
I reverted your changes because I didn't see your comments, above, as they were tucked away among earlier sections. I've transplanted them down here to the tapis. Having spotted them I'll ponder and report back. I'll be away for a few days, so may not report back till next weekend.  Tim riley  talk   20:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now added a note about Shaw's royalties and removed reference to box-office profitability, although I struggle to reconcile Purdom's 1963 assertion that A and the M "played to almost empty houses" with the contemporary report cited in the article that "The Management of the Avenue Theatre have decided, in consequence of the success of Mr. Bernard Shaw's amusing play, Arms and the Man, to commence a series of matinees on Wednesday next, the 23rd inst." If I can find a source I feel confident about I'll add a note that although the play made money for Shaw, it may have lost money for the producers.  Tim riley  talk   10:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Response
The contemporary report about the success of Shaw's play is odd, though it's possible to read it as promotional material, and not necessarily to be taken at face value. We don't know how well the 1894 production of Arms And The Man did, but we do know Shaw had trouble getting another major London production of one of his plays off the ground. Indeed, it wasn't until 1904 and the Royal Court Theatre that he became an established playwright in London.

In fact, in the T.F. Evans book I mention above, there are examples of major critics who wondered why Shaw wasn't more popular. William Archer in 1900 wrote an article where he predicted Shaw would be popular one day, and it was time for the top theatre managers to give his work the proper type of production. And Max Beerbohm wrote, somewhat jocularly, in 1904--just as Shaw was on the verge of making his reputation--that Shaw is already popular in New York and becoming popular in Berlin, and at this rate, should be popular in London in a decade.

Perhaps the answer to the puzzle is in Michael Holroyd's notable biography, particularly the passage I refer to above. In Volume 1, on page 306, after noting the relatively long run of the 1894 production of Arms And The Man, we get this: "But even this, Shaw maintained, was not authentic. The play, he told [friend] Edward McNulty, had 'been manufactured into a London success at a net loss of £4,000. Roughly speaking, it has extracted some £1,500 from the public pocket; and numbers of very clever and distinguished people have come repeatedly (for nothing). The curious thing--to an outsider--is that this is the case with most London successes.'"

Shaw was a joker, so we can't necessarily take him at his word, but he's communicating with a friend, and the numbers are fairly specific, so I tend to believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.64.228 (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Shaw on Stalin
Shaw said "I find it just as hard to believe that he [Stalin] is a vulgar gangster as that Trotsky is an assassin". See page 471 of "The Great Terror", by Robert Conquest. This was inspired by the phoney trials in the late 1930's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:F47F:2B5D:C736:7BBD (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Shaw on gas
Two large sections have been added on this one topic. They are not properly referenced, but if the editor can fix that (duly following WP:CITEVAR) and boil the two sections to perhaps a single sentence it would be helpful. Meanwhile I have reverted.  Tim riley  talk   09:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Two days later: The new editor mentioned above added the following to my user talk page, and I have moved it here where it can be more easily seen by any other interested editors:
 * I added important information about a man that wanted to Mass Murder people in society. A Man that is discussed as a hero in Progressive circles because information on him is suppressed. Why would you not want this information to be seen? I cited it directly. You are very quick to remove it. I don't understand why. Someone who advocated for Gassing people multiple times. He was obsessed with it. Please explain why this information is not relevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolemankooler (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One of Shaw's long-term obsessions was mass murder by means of poison gas. In a 1910 lecture before the Eugenics Education Society, he said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living... A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."
 * In the BBC's weekly magazine, Shaw made a 1933 "appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means, but humane not cruel..." His appeal would shortly come to fruition in Nazi Germany. As Robert Jay Lifton notes in The Nazi Doctors, "The use of poison gas—first carbon monoxide and then Zyklon B—was the technological achievement permitting 'humane killing.'"
 * Unlike most eugenicists, who recoiled in horror from the implications of eugenics after World War II, when the horrors of Nazism were exposed to the world, Shaw continued to advocate it, writing in 1948 that we should enslave “a considerable class of persons” who, according to him, “cannot fend for themselves.” Placed under “tutelage, superintendence, and provided sustenance,” such people, says Shaw, “make good infantry soldiers and well-behaved prisoners.” His prescription: “Reorganize their lives for them; and do not prate foolishly about their liberty.”
 * Shaw continued to advocate mass murder, calling it “kindly but ruthless judicial liquidation”—not for murderers, but for “the criminal you cannot reform” –- career criminals, even those who commit petty crimes.
 * In addition to recidivists, the death penalty should be applied, he wrote, to “idiots” and “morons”: “Do not punish them. Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill them.” Shaw admitted that most of these people are “quite incapable of committing a murder,” but argued that “the increase or decrease of crime is not the point at issue.” They should be killed, according to Shaw, simply because they are incapable of “paying their way.”
 * Clarifying that he was advocating mass murder, Shaw added that “on this principle we shall liquidate many more human nuisances than at present if we are to the weed the garden thoroughly.”
 * Most ominously, among those Shaw marked for death were people he called “ungovernables” and those who are incapable, according to Shaw, of “discharging their social duties.”
 * One of the Worst Human Beings in the History of our Planet. The people who follow and promote this man are even worse. Please don't allow this type of hate to be promoted in our universities.

I reply to the new editor thus: one of Wikipedia's key tenets is balancing all aspects of a subject. If you read the article you will see that we cover dozens of Shaw's views and pronouncements including the one you are concerned about. We had an earlier editor who protested with just as much conviction as you show here that we were maligning a good and saintly man by mentioning his support for Hitler and Stalin (see the section headed "Content comment" above). In fact, what we have aimed to do is to give neutral and proportionate cover to all Shaw's plays, other writings, political activities and personal life across his ten decades in less than 12,000 words. Strict self-discipline has been needed to keep every individual topic as concise as possible. You have attempted to add 400 words on this one point, which is already covered fully in the last paragraph of the "Political and social writings" section. We quote Shaw's statements "if we desire a certain type of civilization and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it" and "There are many people in the world who ought to be liquidated". How much clearer could this be? What would be gained by padding it out with another 400 words on exactly the same point?

The thoughts of other interested editors will be gratefully received.  Tim riley  talk   06:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with this. It does need to be covered (and it already is), but two parts of extended prose gives it undue WP:WEIGHT, against a brief summary. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The above simply seems to be a copy-paste from Conservapedia. If further discussion of the topic is to be covered, it needs to be done in a much more serious manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.178.100 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Mystics
Why has George Bernard Shaw being added to the category "Mystics"? From what I know of George Bernard Shaw, I would not think of him as a mystic, in the same was as Teresa of Avila or John of the Cross were mystics. Vorbee (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vorbee. GBS was many things, but a mystic? I wouldn't call him one of them.  Tim riley  talk   08:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I suggest we leave this thread open for a few days, and then if no-one has commented to the contrary, we should remove that category. Does that seem the way to proceed?  Tim riley  talk   18:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're probably going to be as surprised as I was:
 * Category:Western mystics was added almost 12 years ago, in August 2007(!) by in this diff.
 * That became Category:Mystics in September 2011 in this diff, when Category:Western mystics was "Diffused to other subcategories of Category:Mystics"
 * It appears to have still been present at the time of FA promotion and probably ever since.
 * And I'm as "mystified" as both of you... -- Begoon 18:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe what you are looking for is the mention right there in the "Beliefs and opinions" section and it is sourced. ww2censor (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * yes but, we also say, correctly, “Shaw's views on religion and Christianity were less consistent”. Begoon’s timeline is insightful and should give pause. Favor removing the cat. Ceoil  (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that lumping all of the members of Category:Western mystics into Category:Mystics isn't really what was agreed to in that CFD - the diffusion was supposed to be mostly to more "descriptive" and "useful" subcategories, from my reading. I also, retrospectively, would wonder if that was really a "no-consensus" discussion, looking at arguments rather than just vote counting... made some good points there. -- Begoon 03:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a silly CFD decision imo, but not really relevant here, as there seems to be consensus Shaw was no variety of mystic. I'll remove the cat. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it wasn't clear, I support the removal (apologies for the digression). The source we have for Shaw referring to himself as a "mystic" actually expounds at some length on why he really wasn't one in any conventionally understood sense of the term. -- Begoon 04:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

90th birthday broadcast
In an article as long as this the broadcast is as central to the narrative as much of the material here. It is important to know that there is footage of Shaw expressing himself at length to the world. Roryjohnston (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree (God knows how much effort and mutual eyeballing it took the late Brianboulton and me to keep the article under 12,000 words) and GBS's nonagenarian discourse doesn't seem to me to add anything of substance, but if you can get a consensus for this addition I shall of course go along with it.  Tim riley  talk   20:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation of name
Years ago I added a pronunciation of Shaw's name - Bernard - and I see now that it has been reversed. Wikipedia is intended as a source of knowledge and ambiguously spelt names like Bernard need a pronunciation key. Many names on here do not need IPA - like "George" and "Shaw" - but the multilingual presence of this name Bernard necessitates an IPA. The pronunciation of one's name is one of the most important pieces of information about them. -Petshmm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petshmm (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone has put it back again, but the slight problem is that though it accurately reflects how English people like me pronounce the name, it is not how Bernard Shaw pronounced it, which was with pretty much equal stress on both syllables. You can hear him doing so here and in other sound clips. And I believe in the US (where they often insist on including the "George" in his name, which he hated) he is widely pronounced as Bernard. So as all possible pronunciations are valid or at least current, I'm not sure a pronunciation guide adds much, particularly one that favours the English pronunciation over the numerically prevalent American one, let alone Shaw's own preferred pronunciation. I'm inclined to remove it. What do other editors think?  Tim riley  talk   08:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)