Talk:Jules Verne/Archive 1

Nemo Polish
There's no link! It's false until there's a link stating what was said in the article.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.138 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

old talk
What about copyright? Has it expired? Is the text freely available? Are translations freely available? Can i post them? -- 193.226.167.123 17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the material in front of me, but it should be noted that most English editions are based on a very early translation where the translator excised a little more than a third of the book.


 * Uh, of what? --Brion VIBBER

Portions of the biography section are based on material from the 1911 encyclopedia. ---

Nothing about the fact that Verne is considered as pionner in Science Fiction ?

Around the World in Eighty Days is variously listed as published in 1872 and in 1873. The 1911EB says 1872 as do various other sources. I set both references on the page to 1872, because it was better than having one saying 1872 and the other 1873. But it would be good to clear this up. Dachshund --- I think the original version is 1872 and the English translation is 1873. Deb

Paris in the Twentieth Century
Are we sure that Paris in the Twentieth Century is an actual Verne work and not a modern fake? The history of the found manuscript seemed very odd to me in 1994. Do we have more than the family's word for it? --Error 00:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to know if "Paris in the Twentieth Century" is an actual JV book, the style varies from JV's normal style. also i have read many similar books on the same subject as "Paris in the Twentieth Century" and in a strangly similar style. ??????? Seb Britton --212.140.121.221 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently, yes it is. It was not accepted by the eoditor, hence the 130-year delay before publication. Rama 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the style is quite typical for Jules Verne. Countless enumerations, a cynical sense of humour, and a great affection for music and literature. Also, the list of authors mentioned by Uncle Huguenin reflects Verne's own preferences, as well as some serious flattery aimed at Hetzel.

Jules Verne vs Nathaniel Hawthorne
Verne is often referred to as "the pioneer" of the science fiction genre. I would beg to differ. Granted Verne speaks of space. The genre of science fiction does not, however, deal only with space. Manipulation of biology is, also, a plot device in science fiction. Hawthorne used just such a plot device in his short story entitled "Rappaccini's Daughter". It deals with a scientist who tries to manipulate the biological nature of his daughter in order to produce a different type of human being. Rappaccini also tries to manipulate the biological nature of his daughter's suitor with the thought of breeding the differences. This short story was published prior to the publication of Verne's short "space" saga.

Please feel free to check this premise by accessing the pages in the Wikipedia that refer to Nathaniel Hawthorne.

DM - in Sask.CND


 * Well, there have been such stories since Antiquity. Also, noone tries to say that Jules Vernes in the man who invented Science Fiction -- it would be silly anyway, since such genres emerge progressively over the works of several authors. He is, however, unquestionably one of the pionners of the style, and arguably amongst the ery most proeminents. Rama 06:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Jules Verne was truly the pioneer of science fiction, do not argue. He influenced the king of science fiction, H.G. Wells!!!!!!!!! --152.163.101.13

One could equally argue that Edgar Allan Poe ("Hans Phall", "Mesmeric Revelation", "The Balloon Hoax" etc) pioneered science fiction. Science fiction as we know it today came about as writers in the 19th century used the level of scientific knowledge to either predict possible futures or use scientific elements in adventure stories. You can find science fiction elements in stories before Verne or Wells, or Poe or Hawthorne. However, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Journey to the Center of the Earth, War of the Worlds and The Time Machine are the cornerstones of today's science fiction. These authors do deserve to be listed as pioneers of the genre but as soon as one is labelled the first, someone can find an earlier example. Science fiction grew from the human interest in fictional stories and in scientific fact and no one author invented it.Naaman Brown (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Verne and pederasty
Historical_pederastic_couples lists him with Aristide Briand. Nameme 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim appears to be properly attributed, so we may want to add it along the following lines: "In 1878 Verne was closely associated with the future president of the French Republic, Aristide Briand, 16 at the time, whom he picked up from school to bring to his own home. Some researches (Larivière, p.332; Moré, 2005) have argued that the evidence suggests that the relationship was pederastic in nature." Ahasuerus 18:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, Aristide Briand has never been president of the French Republic. So I have my doubts about the rest of your assertions... Hektor 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Others might see these as instances of mentoring relationships without any particular subtext. ''The theory and the material brought forward in its favor are interesting, but must in the final analysis be regarded as unproven. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this instance the evidence can point as easily to more innocent conclusions. The notion may say more about the mindset of its proponents than about Verne's own proclivities.''

I might or might not agree with you on this, but the fact is that my opinion or yours is irrelevant. The above are examples of editorializing, and - right or wrong - cannot be used here.Haiduc 11:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

One this topic, of relevance, not ONE word is mentioned in the French WP. How peculiar. --Stijn Calle (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be removed. I am sure that you can find on the web, for each famous person of the past, at least one source which says that she or he was homosexual. Hektor (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I do agree this part should be delete because there is not enough for this claim. Henri Cotillard (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the matter has been under academic discussion, and was originally brought up by French intellectuals, some of whom were Verne's contemporaries, and several authorities in the field have discussed the matter, it seems out of place for us unqualified nonentities to dismiss the matter. Certainly if someone can find material presenting an opposite point of view it should be added to the section. Haiduc (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This section misleading. It makes it sound for sure Jules Verne had men for lovers and makes lots of guesses. An instance is his newphew. Its a big guess to make a claim that he was a gay lover and jealous just because he shot him. He was insane and sent to an insane asylum after. Maybe that's why he shot him. Henri Cotillard (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but the way we deal with that kind of thing over here is that we go out and find a opposing opinion and add it to the article to balance the one we question. However, we are not authorized to remove properly sourced material simply because we do not like it. I will not revert you at this time because I do not want to get into a tug-of-war with you, but that edit cannot stand. Please restore the material and look for a published source with an opposite point of view. Haiduc (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing this section due to questionable sources. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" Questionable Sources Asking us to prove that Verne was NOT involved in pederasty is absurd. Your sources are weak while your claims are extreme. The burden of proof is upon your head as you are promoting a fringe theory. You cite one book written in French and another one of your sources, "The Very Curious Jules Vernes," returns no information on a Google search. You are demanding that the section remains and that published opposing POVs be added to the discussion. The problem with a fringe theory is that mainstream scholars do not acknowledge them to be worthy of discussion or rebuttal. This "discussion" you wish to maintain is not relevant to the subject at hand, and that is why you will only find non verifiable sources to promote your theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.172.40 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not claiming that Verne was inspired by pederastic desire, I am simply documenting claims made by eminent French intellectuals and published by a mainstream French publishing house. Gallimard, I am sure you have heard of them. The book has gone through three editions, the last in 2005:

LE TRÈS CURIEUX JULES VERNE. Le problème du père dans « Les Voyages extraordinaires » [1960], 248 pages, 140 x 205 mm. Collection blanche, Gallimard -ess. ISBN 2070246205. Le même ouvrage. Nouvelle édition en 1978, 248 pages sous couv. ill., 140 x 205 mm. Hors série Littérature (1978), Gallimard -ess. ISBN 2070278735. Le même ouvrage. Avec une note éditoriale de Jean Paulhan et une note biographique de Patrick Mauriès. Nouvelle édition en 2005, 280 pages sous couv. ill., 130 x 215 mm. Collection Le Promeneur (2005), Gallimard -ess. ISBN 2070773671. 22,00 €
 * The sources are numerous (8), as you might have noticed as you were deleting the text that bothered you. I am sorry if you are not able to read first hand these sources, but is it wise to attack those who can?! Is it wise to combat a discussion in French by French intellectuals about a French writer when you cannot even read what any of them wrote??? I am afraid that impassioned attacks based on militant lack of information, such as yours, have a great deal more claim to being "fringe" than published works by notable personages. Haiduc (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't speak French. No, I've never heard of Gallimard.  Let's cut through the smugness and get to the issue at hand.  Introducing the topic, even without an opinion, is a way of tinting the view of the man.  If I was to create a controversial topic saying that critics argue whether or not Verne plagiarized some of his work, the onus of providing reputable sources would be upon my head.  At the very least you are guilty of weighing the issue unduly.  The quality and scarcity of your sources do not merit an entire section on the topic, if the at all.  I would ask that you comply with Wikipedia's policy on Non-English sources link.  Provide a translated version of your cited text from a reputable source so that all may take part in the discussion, not just those that speak French (kudos to those that do).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.172.40 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for characterizing my tone. Had I dealt with you on that level you would have liked it a lot less, but I am not here to characterize you, you do that well enough implicitly. I am sorry, but seeing that you are admittedly unfamiliar with the sources I must conclude that you are unqualified to criticize them. There is no "onus" on me to do any more than I have done, which is to indicate that this aspect of Verne's life was and continues to be discussed in print by legitimate sources. The Lariviere book is also quite recent. Seeing that my sources are reputable, current and numerous, while your criticism seems to be based not on the substance of the entry but your discomfort level with the topic I will simply request that you restore the material you have groundlessly removed, so that I do not have to do it myself. If there is an onus it is on you, to know what you are talking about rather than bandy about groundless accusations. Haiduc (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I must agree with the IP user above. Tho I don't know much about this topic myself, I do know that the editor is correct about the wikipedia policies stated. Let me quote a little from the link provided above:

WP:RSUE WP:VUE

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher.

'''Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.  Exceptional claims require exceptional sources''' WP:REDFLAG

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
 * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.


 * The section in question needs a good English-language source (translated or otherwise) to be included in Verne's English-language article. Zeng8r (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok let's back up a second and keep this civil. I apologize for characterizing your tone. This is not a pro pederasty/anti pederasty issue. It's an issue of relevancy. I am simply asking you to comply with Wikipedias standards regarding verifiability as listed by Zeng8r. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.172.40 (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I reject the suggestion that in all cases something has to be part of English-language discourse in order to be in Wikipedia. Considering that this is a French topic which has, not surprisingly, generated the most interest and the most investigative effort among Verne's countrymen, a French source will be more than adequate, it will in all likelihood be more authoritative than an English source. However I will follow the guidelines and will provide the source texts in the footnotes. You can always go to a translation engine if you doubt the relevance of the material. Haiduc (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA
No refrences mainly --Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would think all 54 of his novels should be listed, instead of a 'selection' of 47... -- 81.107.46.167 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For a complete list of his novels, see Voyages Extraordinaires. -- P199 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Connection to Karl May
What is the connection bewteen Verne and May? Why is he listed in the see also section? -- 81.107.46.167 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

None except that May and Verne lived around the same time, one in France ane the other in Germany, and are both reverred in their own language sphere, albeit today as classical historic young adult authors. Both are colored by their time, social standing and country (therefore today considered chauvinistic and borderline racist). Theirfore their influence is as comparable as their writings are as different.Niklas o&#39;Bee) 04:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs legacy section
There should be some discussion in the article of his lasting influence, including some reference or discussion to all the different movies. (And of course, Back to the Future III should get a mention.) AnonMoos 12:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Foresight
I wonder if Vules Vernes prediction of fuel cells is really noteworthy? I refer you to the wikipedia entry on fuel cells - "The principle of the fuel cell was discovered by German scientist Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1838 and published in the January 1839 edition of the "Philosophical Magazine". Based on this work, the first fuel cell was developed by Welsh scientist Sir William Robert Grove in 1843." This being the case, how could Verne have predicted an invention 30 years after it was invented? --Crais459 13:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your right. It read like original research anyway - drawing analogies from the past and layering them on the present. -- Stbalbach 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Verne predicted very few "invents". Mostly he used technology published in scientific periodicals which were not practical yet. Chvsanchez 02:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Couple changes
I made a couple changes, explained here:

--Stbalbach 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Removed the link to William Butcher's home page. William Butcher can have his own article, there is no need to external link to his home page. It is promotional in nature.
 * 2) Removed the links to the French language works. This is explained in WP:EL, foreign language external links are in the French version of the article.

Mercier and Nemo
I do not think Mercier had anything to do with Nemo being an Indian Prince. Nemo's identity is not made clear until much later in the Mysterious Island.--Varnesavant 14:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tomb
I think that his tomb in Amiens is interesting enough to be worthy of a picture. --84.20.17.84 09:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Education
There seems to be a conflict between the English page and the French page regarding Jules Verne's education. According to the French page, he went to the lycée de Nantes, and when I checked the French version of Lycée Georges-Clemenceau (Nantes) (the page where the link sent me), I found Jules Vern under the list of graduates. I could not find any refrences to the Saint Donatien College, but I will make no changes to the page until I am sure. 71.116.122.90 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) vveareed

For a new GA...
This is what I've picked up from the situatuion of this article becoming a GA.


 * Needs more references


 * Needs fixing-up on grammar and spelling


 * Needs more photos


 * Needs more content

''' To all editors of this page: This page is ready for GA word-wise. The only reason it isn't passing is that it has virtually no refereces. Please add references!''' Feel free to add on.  Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs some to edit boldly


 * OK, I've done some preliminary copyediting on the first three sections and will continue to work on the remainder, but a few notes on the first three:
 * lead paragraph: before practical means of space travel had been devised. -- I'm not aware that there were means of space travel, practical or non-practical, in the 19th century, so I changed this to "before any means of space travel had been devised." Feel free to change this back if I am wrong.
 * actually there had been impractical means devised : Cyrano devised a machine, with rockets that propelled it into the sky to a point where the moon started sucking up the fat he had smeared himself with, dragging him upward until he suddenly kipped over and fell onto the moon. Poe, likewise, imagined a balloon capable of reaching high enough (The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall). So yes, there were means devised, but impractical ones. --Anne97432 (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, well -- those are fanciful means, but not real ones. There were patents issued on submarines in the early 18th century, and use of a crude submarine called the TURTLE was attempted against British ships in New York harbor in 1776.  The late 18th century saw the first manned hot-air balloon flights.  Those were real, if not at the time developed to the point where they were of practical use. I'm not convinced the qualifier "practical" is needed in the article with regard to space travel, but if someone wishes to change it back based on the fictional examples you have cited, I wouldn't object. --LBourne (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Early years: At the boarding school, Verne studied Latin, which he used in his short story Le Mariage de Monsieur Anselme des Tilleuls -- As someone who has only a small bit of knowledge about Jules Verne, this confused me a little: Did he use Latin in his short story, or did he use the study of Latin in a boarding school in his story? I couldn't find anything online to tell me anything about the story itself that might clarify this.
 * Last years: On March 9, 1886, as Verne was coming home, -- This provokes the question "Coming home from where? From a trip?  From a day in town?"  So I reworded it to say "as Verne was approaching his own home," but it might be better if it were possible to say where he was coming home from.
 * Last years: Hetzel's son, who took over his father's business, was not as rigorous in his corrections as Hetzel Sr. had been. -- I don't like the use of "corrections".  Could this perhaps be reworded to something like "...was a less agressive editor than Hetzel Sr. had been"? Would that convey the sense of what was intended? --LBourne (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Above Comment: Resolved, for now. ✅  Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions  01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Scholars' jokes
I came to this page to modify a single instance of "in spite of the fact that..." and ended up doing more work on the "Scholars' jokes" paragraph that contained it to improve the clarity, but it still needs additional work. I could not quite make out the meaning of this sentence:


 * Also in Mysterious Island, because of its fauna and flora, the sailor Bonadventure Pencroff asks Cyrus Harding whether the latter believes that islands (like the one they are on) are made specially to be ideal ones for castaways.

If that's a scholar's joke, I don't understand where the joke is.

I assume the remainder of the paragraph following that is saying that the use of outdated technology in what is supposed to be state-of-the art manufacturing in the two books mentioned are more examples of scholars' jokes, but I am not familiar enough with Jules Verne's works to be sure I can untangle it without mangling it. Would someone else be willing to take a stab at that?

Finally, I am wondering if this paragraph might not work better if the examples were put in a bulleted list and the parenthetical phrase about the cannon in From the Earth to the Moon were removed to a footnote?

I hope I'm not taking the "be bold" charge too literally; I'm a rank newbie here, so please forgive me any social blunders I may make. --LBourne (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes - and also the sentence "From the Earth to the Moon (the material used for the cannon — in this case it was probably poetic license, since the description of the making of the gun became far more dramatic)" also seems somewhat obscure.Far Canal (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

None of these seem like so-called scholar's jokes to me? He referred to a flightless beetle flying, described an outdated steel-making method as state of the art, thought a herbivorous sea creature was carnivorous - these seem more like mistakes/sloppy research/bad editing or at best necessary elisions to keep the plot moving? I don't want to just delete as I don't know a vast amount about Verne and I'm sure somebody worked hard on this, but is it really needed? Pitt the elder (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Third most translated?
"He is the third most translated author of all time, behind Disney Productions and Agatha Christie, according to Index Translationum." If you're going to rate authors, counting Disney Productions is silly. This needs to be expressed differently but I'm not sure how. --Richardthiebaud (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The relation between Verne and Gabriel Marcel - NOTE DOWN THE HALL
Does anyone have any information about the relationship between the writers Jules Verne and Gabriel Marcel??? Is there a will -after death- of Verne having to do with Greece? Does anyone know what the concept of the "hall" which is very important in Verne's novel represents? There is always a note or key-note or gravel and a door to this hall? Where is the door to that hall? Is there a woman or a machine leading to that other world? what is the relationship between Socrates, El Greco, Kazantzakis, the brand M and mysticism? In his novel "L' ETOILE DU SUD", Verne introduces a woman with a chalice and a disk.... this, in my opinion, is the Holy Grail! Christos Papachristopoulos, Athens, Greece... Help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.68.135 (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be sourced but ...
Sources have to reflect the weight and relevance of a particular fact. Verne is primarily remembered as a Science Fiction writer. How much of the 'sources' actually mention pederasty? There appears to be no concrete proof of this - so is it right to possibly slander a dead person, given that, if the same allegations were made today they would be 'libellous and baseless allegations' or something similar? Shouldn't the section be cut down at least? Hinnibilis (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"pederasty" section
I find this recurrent "pederasty section" frankly shocking, for several reasons:
 * Jules Verne never was a sexual militant, or otherwise known for sexual traits. Devoting a significant part of the article to his sexual life is out of order.
 * Large parts of this section are in fact Original research of the worse kind:
 * "lack of tolerance for women, who are largely absent from his works"? That would make most authors of boys' books of the time pederasts. Incidentally, this claim is not sourced, and inferring "lack of tolerance for women" from "largely absent from his works" is ludicrous.
 * "his close friend, the composer Aristide Hignard who was probably homosexual himself": sure, maybe also a Jew and a Communist?
 * Several co-called sources are in fact lacking. For instance, "spiced up his letters to Hetzel with double-entendres about oral sex" is not backed by appropriate citations of the letters.
 * To put things in gentle terms, I think that we should not rule out that lots of the other "sources" have themselves been "spiced up" to suggest elements of scandal in order to have their book sold. When you examine more closely what is said, it is always in the most speculative terms.

Overall, this is a patchwork of selective misreadings, anachronisms and petty insinuations marred by commercial interest, which has the appearance of being sourced but is in fact not. Rama (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is easy to fulminate, but I would invite you before anything else to read up a little on the topic. Why do you not try this article (you can babelfish it if you do not speak French) and also a couple of sections from Lariviere (forgive the lack of diacritics):
 * "L'homosexualite est souvent evoquee ainsi d'une maniere voilee, la femme absente ou reduite a un role insignifiant, ou encore denigre par une feroce misogynie, par example dans Clovis Dardentour. Jules Verne ne se confie jamais a sa femme, il ne supporte pas de la voir enceinte, et deux mois avant son accouchement, l'ecrivain part faire un voyage en Scandinavie . . . avec son jeune ami Hignard."
 * Please bear in mind that these are not my "theories" but are considerations put forward by eminent intellectuals, compatriots and often contemporaries of Jules Verne. These are respected personages who should not lightly be accused of venal motives.
 * As for the "probably homosexual Aristide Hignard," please see Jules Verne: The Definitive Biography by William Butcher, p. xxv
 * Regards, Haiduc (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but you do not address my concerns at all:
 * the role of women in the society of the time was not that it is today. It is anachronic to expect people of the late 19th century to behave according to the canons of the early 21st. By the criterion you give, Niels Bohr was a homosexual infatuated with Heisenberg.
 * "Compatriots and often contemporaries" has nothing to so with the matter. "Eminent intellectuals" does not exclude venal interest, so I fail to see your point. Note that I am not accusing anyone of venal motives, I am merely stating that this sort of scandalous insinuations are to be solidely backed up before being endorsed. That they are often made for their intrinsic "sexy" and "people" value is a matter of fact, think about Lewis Caroll for instance.
 * Butcher suspects that someone in the entourage of Verne was homosexual, so what? How does that warrant inclusion of a section which is half as long as the entire biography of the subject?
 * Again, bloated rumours, selective hear-say, poorly sourced gossip (if at all), and generally completely disproportionate section. Rama (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake! I thought that you were in disagreement with my own writing, in response to which I provided you with my sources. They are certainly notable and authoritative, as you probably realize. Butcher is one of the foremeost English-language translators of Verne, if not the foremeost; Paulhan was many things, not least a member of the Académie française. Nonetheless I see you are in disagreement with them, and proposing speculation of your own to counter their conclusions. And you are accusing me of original research?! Tu blagues, mon cher.
 * I think I have shown sufficiently well that all the material I contributed to the article is properly documented and authoritatively sourced. I will still, as I promised earlier, contribute excerpts from the sources so as to keep within Wikipedia regulations.
 * If you are in disagreement with the opinions of authorities on the subject I would like to ask you to do a little bit of work of your own and provide some contrasting opinions (NOT your own) about Verne's misogyny and his homosexual inclinations. There must be some out there. And I would like to ask you not to argue with me over the specifics of Verne's life and their interpretations. I am not making these things up and I am no authority on Verne, just an appreciative reader who read all his (available) works between the ages of seven and twelve. Please also realize that I in no way mean any disparagement to the great man (and certainly neither do any of the authorities I cite here). They are simply adding an illuminating dimension to the life of a complex man, and nothing that anyone has written about him in this regard suggests that he was anything but decent and ethical in his "comportment." Haiduc (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More or less wide speculations of Butcher's about a third party do not belong here. Their presence in the article is in itself tendentious.
 * Lots of people are members of the Académie française. Pétain was a member of the Académie française. I would not regard his views on homosexuality to be beyond questions for that, however.
 * I am not a hard-core defender of Verne's every detail. He had numerous personal traits for which I would have regarded him as unpleasant. And I am well aware that pederasty was not as badly considered at the time as it is today. I actually wish that this sort of relativism be more widespread among people who infer pederasty from the low profile of women in late 19th century boys' novels.
 * I am not purposing that Verne was not a pederaste, homosexual, pedophile or whatever. I am saying that the construction which discusses the issue of Verne's alledged pederasty is a crumbling pile of crap. I do not rule out that there might be some better evidence in the future which would warrant discussion of the topic, but in its present state, it is totally without merit, and an example of the worse sort of material produced on Wikipedia. Rama (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not be adverse to reining in some of the opinions of the sources (such as Butcher's guess about Hignard) but I do not see how the bulk of this can reasonably be dismissed. It is a recurrent motif in the critical writing about this man, More's book has been re-published recently, L'Humanite devoted an appreciative recent article to it, Butcher has just published a major biography which is very revealing of just this aspect. How can you dismiss offhandedly so many legitimate sources? And how can you do so without incurring the onus of OR?! I do not think you are being fair, either to me or to the material. Haiduc (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the problem is the actual importance of the trend you mention.
 * There have been numerous studies of Jules Verne from different angles: some, for instance, have suggested that he was anti-semitic, and indeed you could find extracts from his books, views regarding the Dreyfus affair, that would support this hypothesis. The problem is not whether these studies exist (they do, as the ones you mention do), but whether they are of such importance that they accurately characterise the man (that accusing Verne of being antisemitic is probably unfair from a historical relativism perspective is not the core of the issue, but commons perception is).
 * From this respect, I am and remain unconvinced that the studies you mention have set dominant perception of Verne in the public (as opposed to Lewis Caroll, for instance, who, however unfair it actually is, has acquired a reputation as a pedophile).
 * The fact that you seem to have a particular interest in pederasty could give you a deformed view of this issue. Please note: I do not mean to accuse you of propagandising the issue; I am merely advising caution against the possible bias of selection that you might have acquired studying the subject -- which is a perfectly legitimate and respectable study. Rama (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rama. The fact something is sourced is neither here nor there.  WP:WEIGHT rules, and particularly the balance made in secondary sources (Haiduc the rebel is using primary sources, which is contravenes WP:OR).  None of my secondary sources mention this.  Therefore the section should be given due weight. Hinnibilis (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well someone got there before me. Hinnibilis (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

These speculations should be given the same weight that they are in published reliable biographies of him that are the same size as ours. As near as I can tell, they don't say word one about these speculations. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Allow me to point out a number of inconsistencies in the above responses. Hinnibilis feels that I am using primary sources. That is not so. Any material I quote has been taken strictly from secondary sources. I assume you refer to the passage about Halg. That is from Lariviere, all I have done is to translate it as precisely as possible. I can furnish the text as cited by Lariviere if you like.
 * Hinnibilis also would like to keep the article within the range of what has historically been said about Verne. There is a problem with that: queer studies is a new branch of knowledge, and it often recovers new material, or material that has been overlooked (intentionally or otherwise) by previous researchers. Not surprisingly, recent studies of Verne are more likely to broach the topic than older one. That historical imbalance should not hamstring us in our coverage.
 * Rama is concerned that my specialty (the study of pederasty in history) has warped my judgment. Are you really suggesting that expertise in a field disqualifies a writer from covering that topic?! I think I have a very impartial view of pederasty, and an especially nuanced one as I have come across it in all its manifestations, from the sublime to the abhorrent. Indeed, I would like to turn that argument around and suggest that you are the one who should question himself, as in all likelihood you are influenced by the simplistic and one-sided presentations in the popular media, which lead to anything but a balanced and impartial view of the topic. At any rate, I am not spewing out these notions as some personal hypothesis but am simply reporting what is said in the literature.
 * Rama also (really now, how could you!) is also blaming me for not adhering to the "dominant perception" of the public. . . What is it to us what the public thinks??? Je m'en fous comme de l'an quarante, what the public thinks, and so should you. It is what the scholars think that interests us, and these days they are writing about the homosexual elements in Verne's work and life. By the way, would that make people more comfortable, if we titled the section as "homosexual" rather than "pederastic"? It is the same to me, as long as the substance of the material is not mutilated to change its sense.
 * Finally, and perhaps most importantly, just how important is it, what desires JV harbored in his breast? There are several answers that could be given to that question. First of all, we see that a number of recent works deal with it. Lottman (2005), Lariviere (1997), Butcher (2007) and More (reprinted 2005), as well as the article in l'Humanite (2005). They obviously think it important. From the historical point of view, I would also say that it ties together a number of disparate threads in his life and reveals him, writer and man, in a more complex and human light. How important is it to know that Tchaikovsky was gay in appreciating his music, how important is it to know that Mann was gay when reading his novels? For some, very. For others, not at all. But we should not be the ones to make that decision for the reader, certainly not by withholding legitimate information. Haiduc (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:OR is not strong on defining 'primary' and 'secondary' outside pure historical subjects. The consensus is that any source requiring expert knowledge of the subject, in particular material in scholarly journals is to be regarded as 'primary' even though scholars would regard these as 'secondary'.  This is because the risk of a slanted editor selectively using research material is too great.  'Secondary' for the purposes of Wikipedia means that which can easily be verified by going to a public library.  In the cases where balance is required, I find the use of other encyclopedias is helpful.  For example in the recent edit war on the Philosophy article, it was agreed to use a large number of reference sources from different dates to achieve balance.  My doppelganger Peter Damian managed to push that one through, even though Peter is an expert in the history of philosophy and did not in fact agree with the introduction that was the result. E.g.  the rebellious Haiduc says "There is a problem with that: queer studies is a new branch of knowledge, and it often recovers new material, or material that has been overlooked (intentionally or otherwise) by previous researchers. "  Quite.  I think the whole subject is interesting and particularly the uneasy relation between pederasty and homosexuality.  But as H says, it is a pretty new subject area.  Wikipedia is intended as a general reference work, and is mainly staffed by volunteers with little subject matter expertise.  Its approach needs to reflect that.  If easily accessible reference works in 20 years time give credence to this modern research about Verne, then so be it.  Currently, the only thing within Googling distance of 'Jules Verne' which mentions the pederasty is this article itself.  So the section should go.  I would not object to a much shorter section that placed this research in context (i.e. saying that some recent research suggests this).   Hinnibilis (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually we do mind what the common understanding of a subject is among specialists and in the general public. This is what prevents us from giving undue weight to fringe views and extremists.
 * I see the point about Queer studies as confirming my feeling of selection bias (and possibily of anachronical understanding).
 * I would have nothing against Verne being metionned in relevant articles on Queer studies, but I really think that a "queer studies" section here is out of place. Rama (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we do mind what specialists say, but our source should not be the specialists themselves, for that amounts to OR. We are looking for authoritative but accessible sources that reflect specialist work.  That is v important.  The general principle should be only to cite work that is easily verifiable by your average Wikipedia editor, i.e. someone probably with a good general education, but not a specialist.  Indeed I am a specialist, but not in the area of 'queer studies', whatever that is.  Hinnibilis (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Whatever that is"?! Hinnibilis, I don't think that we as editors should presume to argue from an insufficiency of knowledge. If you do not know what queer studies is, please find out. As for your concern regarding specialist sources, it is out of place. The works I cite are widely available, and meant for public consumption at a popular level. In other words, they are written for the common man, not the specialist. Not that I agree with your premise that Wikipedia should be dumbed down.
 * Rama would like to see queer studies relegated to "QUEER STUDIES." That amounts to saying "You homosexuals should stick to your own articles and leave the rest of us alone." Also, Rama, I see you are furiously backpedaling on your former contention that we should be guided by popular opinion. You have leavened it now with the opinion of specialists. But you are all playing semantic games here. You are trying to resist the inclusion of widely disseminated information about Jules Verne on the pretext that it is specialist research -- but the material comes from mainstream and popularizing sources. You refuse the findings of authorities on the pretext that it is "queer studies" and you want to wait twenty years before giving it credence. But queer studies have been around since the seventies, if not the sixties. It is another word for history devoid of sexual cleansing.
 * However, I see that none of us is incorrigible, and that there are suggestions for maintaining the substance of the material as long as it is properly contextualized. Let's discuss what should stay and what should go. You first. (Oh, and about the "rebellious Haiduc" bit. He is no longer rebellious, not in middle age. He is simply not a conformist. Neither are any of you, I wager. Otherwise you would be home swilling beer and watching sports on tv, instead of engaging in intellectual jousting on the battlefields of an encyclopedia, and for no material gain, to boot!) Haiduc (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We should not be guided by popular opinion. But we should not be doing original research - which includes selective use and interpretation of original research.  If modern research is reflected in authoritative but relatively accessible sources, then fine by me.  Haiduc please give evidence of this.  I shall be off to the library some time to check on entrances re 'Jules Verne'.  Hinnibilis (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On 'rebellious Haiduc' I was referring to your user name. A rebel against the Turkish occupation, an outlaw and a road bandit. Hinnibilis (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. Please do not volunteer to be the Turk. As for the evidence you request, as per a previous message, here it is: Lottman (2005), Lariviere (1997), Butcher (2007) and More (reprinted 2005), as well as the article in l'Humanite (2005). If you need more details, let me know. Haiduc (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Maybe the information about JV's homosexuality is here given undue weight but this seems coming from reliable secondary sources. Ceedjee (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Where does Lottman say that JV was a pederast? The only places where, according to the currently deleted section, this is explicitly mentioned at all are


 * Jean Paulhan, introduction to Marcel Moré The Very Curious Jules Verne
 * Raymond Queneau, introduction to Marcel Moré The Very Curious Jules Verne
 * William Butcher, Jules Verne: The Definitive Biography p.xxv. Thunder's Mouth Press, 2006

We should distinguish between references where you the Wikipedia editor are making a certain interpretation or inference, and where it is explicitly asserted or evidenced. Of the latter, we have to be sure these claims are cited in mainstream secondary sources, e.g. encyclopedias, accessible reference works. Hinnibilis (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On undue weight, this is a separate issue. This is where the situation where the fact is plainly established and in full view of daylight, but not particularly relevant to the subject's life or work. E.g. that Verne's father was a lawyer - would not command a whole paragraph, as with the pedo thing. The current problem I have is whether academic but nonetheless utterly speculative research is being presented as though it were in full view of daylight. Hinnibilis (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit] From a review of Butcher: "Butcher's speculations about Verne's possible homosexuality call for a dash of salt. " I will accept the Butcher as mainstream, and it looks as though I need to look at the book itself, but this evidence already suggests academic 'speculation' rather than stuff in full daylight. Hinnibilis (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It pains me to quote Mr Wales, but this is actually quite clear:


 * From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: No original research and Verifiability. Hinnibilis (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is well that you accept Butcher as mainstream, and More and Paulhan are mainstream as well. Lariviere was published by a small (very small?) gay studies press, it seems, but he simply fleshes out what the others already detail. As for my "proving" stuff, be serious. I am not "proving" anything at all, I am simply documenting what has been already published. I am disappointed that you would try to misrepresent my contributions here in that light. Isn't that called a "straw man" argument? Haiduc (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Note re: the section
FYI, Haiduc restored the "pedastery" section without, as far as I can tell, any discussion regarding said action. Given that the consensus on this page seems pretty clear about keeping it out, I have removed it again. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  05:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ckatz, if you will review the discussions above you will note that I was criticized for lacking original French language material. That has been added. Sorry if I was more than laconic in my re-adding the text but I thought it would be obvious. Anyway, no harm done. You will also note an additional citation, at the beginning of the section, supporting one more change: the indication that one of the main texts upon which this discussion is based is still considered important.


 * The problem here, gentlemen, is not the presence of an (uncomfortable to some) discussion - the possible or probable homosexuality and pederasty of Jules Verne, as per the sources. It is the unfortunate resistance of several editors to covering that interesting exploration in the critical literature, a discussion which throws a new light on his motives and inspiration, and on his choice of characters and situations. This material is highly relevant to his work and to the article. It is copiously cited. What is the problem??? Haiduc (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ckatz, I am surprised that you criticized me for restoring the material without discussion, but when I attempted to discuss you had nothing to say. So far I have answered a number of criticisms. I have provided original French material, and I have offered to discuss. I assume that if there are no further objections, the material can go back in the article. Haiduc (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it really can't, based on the consensus established on this page. There has been extensive discussion leading to agreement (with the exception of yourself) that the material does not belong. --Ckatz chat spy  09:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not at all clear how many of the commentators were banned users or sockpuppets. Times change. I have located a recent published source that considers the source material "important." This issue is very much alive, and will only expand further. Unless you can now muster a consensus, this should not be kept from the public. Haiduc (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to discuss the addition here. I'd recommend providing your source, and quoting extensively.  That being said, the last time this issue was discussed was, what, 4 weeks ago?  Using "Times change" as an argument that the crystal-clear consensus from a month ago no longer holds is not really a bucket that holds a lot of water.  That being said, if there are new reliable sources that don't violate WP:UNDUE, we should surely examine them here on the talk page. Nandesuka (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you - if the participants were not qualified to participate, then times do change rather rapidly. More tonight. Haiduc (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that this claim is sources well enough. To repeat:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:REDFLAG

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
 * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Stray comments from books introductions and the like are not good enough to include this claim, at least not so definitively stated. A short paragraph beginning "Some sources have theorized..." would be better, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the claim is surprising it may be that the person surprised is simply not conversant with the literature. Having said that, I must confess that I myself was surprised to discover this material, but then again, I am not a Verne scholar, just an ex-voracious reader of his works.
 * The main current English language translator (I hope I am right on this one) of Verne is not a fringe source, nor are the French texts - they all come from mainstream souces (except Lariviere, who is published by a small gay press - significant if here were the only one, but he is not.
 * You have not shown the sources to be unreliable, thus your citing of Wikipedia policy is meaningless. But your suggestion of adding "some sources have theorized" is fine, by my lights.
 * I am copying the text below, as per Nandesuka's good suggestion. Please help me see what is wrong with it so that we may salvage any good parts and discard the rest. Haiduc (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion resumes
Not having participated in this discussion before, here are some comments. Firstly, is the proposed section undue weight on the issue. My feeling is that if we include anything on the subject, then we should limit ourselves to one or two sentences. There is no need to repeat the detailed arguments made in the sources. Instead, simply give a sentence explaining that modern literary critics have theorised, and source this sentence. However, my main issue with this section is whether it is POV. Are we apply a 21st century North-American viewpoint to a 19th century French author, and have the attitude on this subject changed significantly in the meantime? I would suspect that a 15-year-old boy could easily be regarded as being "of age" for sexual matters during the period of question. To me, pedaphilia / pederasty implies attraction to people who are significantly younger, and using the word in this context is definitely recentism and thus to be avoided. Bluap (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be comfortable with a one-sentence (or better, a one-paragraph) summary, if and only if the totality of the material goes into an article of its own (which may well grow anyway, as I have been running down another lead about homosexuality in his works).
 * I totally disagree with the way you represent pederasty. The relationships are defined as being between a man and an adolescent boy, not a little child, and have nothing to do with pedophilia. This is not "recentism," it has been like this since Minoan Greece, three thousand years ago. Haiduc (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Very strange this. I can clear this up once and for all. For one thing Butcher is not "his" translator. In any case, this idea of pederastic themes in Verne's writings is just an interpretation like any other, except it is not mainstream. It is not recognized enough to be included. Otherwise there are dozens of other published literary analyse that can be equally included. Also the Butcher biography is entertaining by littered by some factual errors. He says John Brown was murdered in 1856 when in fact he was really executed for murder in 1859. And a book or writing isn't determined "definitive" by the writer. That is determined by the readers.

Second, this whole idea of a relation between Verne and Briand is an old error that has been corrected but still comes up from time to time for whatever reason. What I mean is the idea of a relation between Verne and Briand was from a misreading of a handwritten letter by Verne to Hetzel on a Saturday in 1877 (see See Jean-Michel Margot, "Dernières précisions sur les rencontres Briand-Verne," Bulletin de la Société Jules Verne, 62:210, 1982). This isn't the only example of an error that somehow stays with us after it has been disproven or in some cases even when the original author takes back their claim. This error was corrected by no less a leading authority than Dr. Olivier Dumas, the president of the Société Jules Verne [here's their website http://www.societejulesverne.com/asp/index.aspx]. But this error keeps getting picked up: Dumas writes in his biography of Verne, "each one takes again the errors of the first." There is a brief discussion of this here:.

Third, if you've been around boys and some men long enough, you find Vernes' sexual double-entrendres are nothing out of the ordinary. I heard Mozart used to write similar "dirty" jokes in his music and even wrote something called "Lick my arse nice and cleanly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilightofthought (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc Completely Misrepresents Butcher
The bigger problem with Haiduc using Butcher to support statements to the effect of "Verne had homosexual leanings", or "Verne was a pederast" is that Butcher provides no support for such statements. The citation Haiduc gives (interestingly) is to page xxv, in the introduction, where Butcher suggests that the evidence "implies that a homosexual streak permeated his character". In this paragraph, Butcher is quite clearly not saying that Verne "had homosexual leanings". Rather, he is promising the reader that he will deal with the question of Verne's sexuality fully and fairly.

Why would one cite the introduction to a work instead of the actual work itself? Why would Haiduc do such a strange thing?

When you read the actual book, the answer becomes clear. After that one enigmatic reference to a "homosexual streak", Butcher spends chapter after chapter exploring Verne's straight escapades, his vulgar private correspondence, and his many women. In the chapter "Salvation Through Work", Butcher turns to the question of whether Verne was gay. Butcher opens by noting that "Heterosexual desire clearly governed much of his life," while talking of hints of "an inescapable undercurrent." Butcher notes that "Verne consciously camped up homosexuality," citing some of his more vulgar letters. Butcher attributes this not to homosexuality but to "a generalized and throbbing pansexuality" and "a repressed desire, localized nowhere or everywhere, attached incongruously to throbbing earth-mothers or ancient pianos or aged aunts or orally fixated double-entendres." Butcher talks of some of the biographies that describe Verne's alleged homoesexuality and dismissed them as describing this "without a shred of evidence, apart from the authors', admittedly homosexual, intuition". He concludes with this paragraph:

"Verne, in sum, greatly enjoyed ambiguously bisexual flirting; and his sexuality was not fully heterosexual, diverted here, there, and everywhere. The Pope, the great-niece, and Disney's sanitized, neutered Verne are therefore a travesty. But it would be a foolhardy biographer that leaped upstream from the books to the life.  Although Verne expressed strong urges, their exact nature remains unclear.  However strong the urge, we cannot observe, with a conveniently angled lens, what went on in his 40 successive home bedrooms and hundreds of hotel rooms."

In summary, in characterizing Butcher as providing support for Verne being gay, Haiduc has either not read Butcher's book, or has read it and completely mischaracterized his argument. Butcher is, we can all agree, a mainstream source. That Haiduc is willing to so egregiously misconstrue an author to try to imply mainstream support for his fringe sources is nothing short of shameful. And with that, I am inclined to consider this matter closed, at least until such time as another reliable mainstream source takes up the question of Verne's sexuality anew. Nandesuka (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of Butcher, I gleaned the material from what can be seen on line, I will get around to getting the book itself to verify your claims. As for "fringe sources," that echoes that famous English paper headline, "Fog in Chanel, Continent Cut Off." It is easy, living in the Anglophone world, to dub as "fringe" anything not written in English. It is also ethnocentric. Haiduc (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply incredible. Maybe the next time you decide to attribute your personal opinions to published authors, you'll do them -- and us -- the courtesy of actually reading the works you are citing.  Just so we can all calibrate the magnitude of the problem, which of the above works that you cited have you not actually read? Nandesuka (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me a break! These are not novels. You go into a book and use relevant sections. Your conception of homosexuality has nothing to do with reality, and nothing to do with what has been written about him. And as far as misrepresentation, Butcher clearly says that one of Verne's characteristics was "a homosexual leaning that would become more pronounced in later years." (p.85). And is attacked by a private reviewer for "lugubrious allegations of Verne’s homosexuality." And this article also discusses More's hypotheses about "the writer's misogamy, as reflected in his constant disparagement of the idea of marriage and—claims the critic—in a strong undercurrent of homosexuality. If, in fact, many of Moré's ideas have since been considered tangential or mistaken, they did give an impulse for subsequent studies of Verne." (I do not know if it is the homosexual hypothesis that he labels "tangential and mistaken" but if you want to claim that, you will have to bring proof.) And this review describes Lucian Boia's Jules Verne: les paradoxes d’un mythe and his exploration of Verne's "ambiguous sexuality (woman-chaser and closet homosexual)." And the French material speaks for itself and does not need your personal opinion as seal of approval. Why are you wasting your time and mine with these fatuous "denunciations"??? Haiduc (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because, unlike you, I do not confuse being able to google for sentence fragments that support my prejudices with actual research. Nandesuka (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the really funny part is, you can't even do that correctly. The blogspot link you provide (oh, we're really into the reliable sources now!) is a general critique of Butcher, that mentions said allegations, which we're all aware Butcher discusses, and which Butcher disposes of.  But, y 'know, google came up with a blog when you typed in "Verne homosexual", so I guess that's good enough for you.
 * For what it's worth I will agree that "the French material speaks for itself", since based on your track record you probably haven't read that, either, and thus aren't qualified to speak for it. At least if it speaks for itself it won't be misrepresented. Nandesuka (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can snap at my heels all you want. It does not change the fact that this material is discussed in the literature but is being kept out of the article through contrived rationalizations. Also, you seem to completely misunderstand how Wikipedia is built. The fact that some of the information I have contributed may well be fragmentary is no reason to obstruct it. Someone else will come along and complete it. Over two million articles have been written in that fashion. You are just getting in the way with your obstructionist tactics. Haiduc (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's pretty clear now that the section in question should remain excised from the article. That citation from an introduction always struck me as odd. If a detail is important enough to mention there, it's usually expanded upon in the actual text. I guess it was. Zeng8r (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may add something, has anyone seen my comment above? I think it decisively settles this issue which should save you all a lot of ink. The Jules Verne society cleared this issue up: it was all due to a misreading of a note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilightofthought (talk • contribs) 06:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Having observed the page for some time now, there appears to be a strong consensus that the topic does not belong in the article. A number of editors have reviewed Haiduc's arguments for inclusion, as well as the sources he has listed, and determined that there is no support for the claims being made. As such, barring a desire on the part of the editors here to continue the discussion, I would like to close and archive the discussion. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  06:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment What there has been is a moving target for inclusion of a topic that will not go away here, just as it has not gone away in Vernian criticism for the last fifty years at least, and maybe more if we include Mallarme's suggestive "le tres curieux Jules Verne." We are obligated to inform the readers that the discussion has taken place and continues to this day, instead of entitled to find rationalizations for a coverup and cosmetization of an image of the author fit for PG-13 consumption. Haiduc (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Ckatz's suggestion -- this issue is closed until new reliable, non-fringe sources are brought forward by editors who actually read them. Nandesuka (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sultan's Elephant
This art performance was commissioned to celebrate the centenary of Verne's death. The various sources I have read state either that the story told in the performance was Verne-esque, or was directly based on a story of his. I'm not sure which is true. If the latter, does anyone here know which story this would be? I'd like to add it to the article. Thanks! Roisterdoister (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Need for a new page
This page has many errors, and has been subject to continuous vandalism. Many corrections made in good faith may have in fact introduced more errors. There are many Verne experts who are members of the North American Jules Verne Society, William Butcher and Prof. Arthur Evans, to name a couple, competent to pass judgment on modifications, and once a definitive page has been established the page should be locked down and mods referred to arbitrators. This page has been denigrated by professional Verne scholars and has reflected unnecessarily on the quality of Wikipedia in general. (Varnesavant (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

The theme of pederasty in his life and writings
Some historians and literary critics have theorized certain pederastic elements in the life and work of the writer. Jean Paulhan, in an introduction to a work written in the nineteen sixties but still seen as important, describes two main themes identified in Verne's work. First, that "in life we must, little by little, substitute in place of our natural father an older and better man than ourselves," and later that we will need likewise to substitute, in place of our wife, a male friend worthy of esteem and admiration. The second theme is that "the entire opus of Jules Verne has, as its purpose and secret, pederasty." His theme is picked up by a later work, that of Marc Soriano, who sees elements of "latent homosexuality, sublimated pederasty, misogyny" in Verne's writings.

Verne's close and lasting friendship with Aristide Briand, whom he met in Nantes in 1876 when the young man was a fifteen year old lycéen and schoolmate of his son Michel, is also cited as a possible example of his attraction to youths. He frequently picked up Briand from the lycée and brought him to his house, and also used him as a character in A Long Vacation. Michel Larivière, in his Homosexuels et bisexuels célèbres posits a quasi-universal theme in the novels of "an older and more experienced man who offers support and affection to a young and very handsome boy." Examples of such pairs are Lord Glevanan with the young Robert Grant, in The Children of Captain Grant, the dashing Pencroft with the fifteen year old Herbert Brown, the "brave boy" whom he "loved as if he had been his own child," in The Mysterious Island, and Kaw-djer and Halg in The Survivors of the 'Jonathan,' of whose love he writes: "Halg was the only one able to move this disaffected man, who knew no love other than the one he felt for a child... Is it because they have some dim notion of this disproportion that, despite its resplendent beauty, such an emotion astonishes more than it charms other men, and seems inhuman to them, even though it is above them?"

Another indication of Verne's pederastic or homosexual leanings has been suggested in his purported lack of tolerance for women, who are largely absent from his works, or reduced to insignificance, or subjected to a ferocious misogyny. Likewise, the incident of the attack by his nephew, with whom he had entertained a long term and affectionate relationship, and which was hushed up by the local press, is held to be indicative of either a sexual relationship gone bad, or else an attack of jealousy at the arrival of a new love interest. In a recent biography, his translator, William Butcher, in presenting evidence for Verne's homosexual leanings, also cites the fact that he only fathered one child, spent large periods of his life and both major journeys in the company of his close friend, the composer Aristide Hignard who was probably homosexual himself, and spiced up his letters to Hetzel with double-entendres about oral sex.

Caroline Tronson
This article makes no reference to Caroline Tronson who was his first love as well as the inspiration for several of his early works.Smallman12q (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Misleading claim in section "Heztel's influence"
The section says that Capitan Nemo is changed "to an Indian prince fighting the British Empire after the Sikh War."

Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea says that "As revealed in the later Verne book The Mysterious Island, Captain Nemo is a descendant of Tipu Sultan (a Muslim ruler of Mysore who resisted the British Raj), who took to the underwater life after the suppression of the 1857 Indian Mutiny, in which his close family members were killed by the British."

Although both claims are consistent, the reference to Sikh Wars is misleading. Tipu Sultan had no relation to Sikh Wars. N6n (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Jules Verne
That category needs a lot of cleanup. There's people in there hardly related to Verne, and locations only loosely connected to him or his works. I'd do it myself, but i don't have the time right now. I'm dropping this notice since it's the Google logo for today. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Air Travel
" Verne wrote about space, air, and underwater travel before air travel and practical submarines were invented"

Surely air travel (i.e. ballooning) was already invented. The first hot air balloons - Montgolfiers, etc. - were invented in the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.17.137 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fix link to From the Earth to the Moon
Please fix From the Earth to the Moon, and a Trip Around It to From the Earth to the Moon to correctly link to the wikipedia article about this book.

(talk) Rytisbalt 14:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lack of References
How is this article not flagged for lack of references? There are only two in the entire article, one about him being referred to as the "Father of Science Fiction", and one about his ancestry. There are whole chunks of the article that could be considered quite controversial, such as his reputation in the English-speaking world, his attitude towards Germans, etc., that have no references. What's going on here? --70.124.63.182 (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Index Translationum
Article states However, he is the second individual, behind Agatha Christie. Number one is "Disney Studios", which is not an individual author.
 * He is the third most translated individual author in the world, according to Index Translationum.

Ridger11 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Ridger11

Grammar
In the opening paragraph the word "is" is being used to represent three authors. Change it please. It bugs the living day lights out of me.

Verne, along with Hugo Gernsback and H. G. Wells,  is  are often popularly referred to as the "Father of Science Fiction".


 * The sentence as written reads as "Verne, (tangential statement), is often ... ". Both are valid grammar, but this is clearer in meaning. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Profitwolf, 8 February 2011
edit semi-protected

The words on the page should read "Britain]]" not "Brittany"

Profitwolf (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Britanny is a region of France. Britain is ambiguous and would lead people to think of Great Britain instead of the region that is meant. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.145.187.67, 8 February 2011
edit semi-protected

The text "Verne's second French biographer, Marguerite Allotte de la Fuye," should be changed to "Verne's second French biographer, his grand-niece Marguerite Allotte de la Fuÿe," (In addition to "grand-neice" a tréma has been added over the y, to be consistent with the same surname used for Verne's mother earlier in the Wikipedia article.)

The changed text should be followed by the following four footnotes, namely [2][3][4] and [5]. The bibliographic template should be used, and edits made so that the citations appear in the bibliography section which already exists below the article. The first reference is to a particular page and indicates that Marguerite Allotte de la Fuÿe was Verne's great-niece (and discusses the quality of her biography.) [2] Title: Jules Verne: Narratives of Modernity Author: Smyth, Edmund J. Publisher: Liverpool University Press (May 1 2000) Page: 22
 * 1) ISBN-10: 0853237042
 * 2) ISBN-13: 978-0853237044

The other references are for the biography itself. [3]  Title: Jules Verne, sa vie, son oeuvre. Author: Allotte de la Fuÿe, Marguerite. Language: French Edition: Édition originale Publisher: Simon Kra, Paris, 1928.

[4] Title: Jules Verne, sa vie, son oeuvre. Author: Allotte de la Fuÿe, Marguerite. Language: French Edition: Nouvelle édition Publisher: Hachette impr. Brodard et Taupin, 1966

Translated as: [5] Title: Jules Verne Author: Allotte de la Fuÿe, Marguerite Translator: de Mauny, Eril Language: English Staples Press Limited, London, 1954

68.145.187.67 (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅. I placed the biographies in the further reading section. I hope that's alright with you? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good idea. Alas I neglected the label Publisher: in the last citation.  As a result, you took the language "English" to be part of the publisher name.  It should be clipped out.  The publisher should be "Staples Press".  Also, the citation you constructed for the first reference is not being processed into formatted text.  Please check the syntax.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.187.67 (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of Certain Vocabularies
Sorry, don't mean to nitpick, but in the "Literary Debut" section, at the end of the first paragraph, it is written, "[...]geographical details lent an air of verisimilitude." This is a misuse of the word "verisimilitude," which means "the quality of truthfulness; having a likeness to the truth." The use of this word makes its accompanying phrase redundant. A better word to use here is "verity," if you feel like being fancy; "authenticity" would also work. Kim2jy (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you'd accept either "lent verisimilitude" or "lent an air of authenticity"? (I don't like "verity" here.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Google
Hes on the front page of google today, this should be added to wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.218.160 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added it into the notes section yesterday, along with a thumbnail of the Doodle; since then, somebody else has moved it into a new Google Doodle section of the page. curt---(Talk&#124;Contributions) 19:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Doodle
FYI, today google's doodle is for Jules Verne, and the top result is this page. We're liable to see a lot more traffic (and probably more vandalism) here today. Witty Lama 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it worth mentioning in the article? Anything which gets the Google homepage is pretty important, after all. ~ Wikipedian192 (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just a doodle and his 183rd birthday. No importance here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.7.56 (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedian192, google is not even significant one bit to jules verne, why the hell would you even think of mentioning such a small detail in this article. We might as well mention that I am a fan of jules verne in the article if we're going to mention that there was a google doodle today... That's how stupid it is. 24.87.83.207 (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the info onto the notes section (because as far as I was concerned, it was a minor detail) along with a still thumb of the Doodle. However, since then someone has moved it into a new "Google Doodle" section. curt ﾂ---(Talk&#124;Contributions) 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.145.187.67, 10 February 2011
In the "further reading" section, the citation for the 1954 translation needs correction. Replace "Eril de Mauny" with "Erik De Mauny" (according to WorldCat). Replace "Jules Verne Author" by "Jules Verne"

68.145.187.67 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done by User:Headbomb; thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Google doodle image
The Google doodle image presently used on the page currently has no non-free use rationale. If anyone feels it really does add something significant to the article, a rationale would need to be added to the image page, to explain just what, and why this image should be considered to pass the Wikipedia non-free content criteria. Otherwise the image will shortly be deleted. I have no idea whether other recipients of Google Doodles have them shown on their pages, but I suspect not. Jheald (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Book review: Jules Verne's 'The Secret of Wilhem Storitz' : revisions to an unfinished manuscript have been undone and the authentic story is available.
Book review: Jules Verne's 'The Secret of Wilhem Storitz'

'''Finally, revisions to an unfinished manuscript have been undone and the authentic story is available. The tale of obsessive love is stealthy, eerie and unstoppable.'''

By Susan Salter Reynolds Special to the Los Angeles Times May 2, 2011

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/books/la-et-book-20110502,0,6160500.story

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Wilhelm-Storitz-Translation-Imagination/dp/0803246757/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1305504044&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Secret+of+Wilhem+Storitz&x=15&y=19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.123.237 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Brutus de Villeroi
"May" this "may" that. I can't be the only one to think this person should not be mentioned so prominently. Under a "speculation" section, yes. But name-dropping him in a long sentence without anything but a "maybe" because there is no proof at all, is too much. How could this be corrected?PeterHarlington (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Writings about Travels
"Verne wrote about space, air, and underwater travels before air travel and practical submarines were invented, and before practical means of space travel had been devised."

Air travel had already been invented in late 18th century. See Montgolfier Brothers and their manned hot air balloon.

Practical submarine had already been invented in late 18th century. See Robert Fulton and his Nautilus submarine.

Thus, only space travel had not actually been invented then. --5.34.18.65 (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A rational observation. Rewrote the sentence to: "Many of his novels involve elements of technology that were fantastic for the day, but later became commonplace." May need to be revised further to fit the parameters of the lead, since the article talks rather about the optimistic portrayal of technology. Richigi (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about de Villeroi
I removed the following paragraph, which has long been questioned: At the boarding school, Verne studied Latin, which he used in his short story Le Mariage de Monsieur Anselme des Tilleuls in the mid 1850s. One of his teachers may have been the French inventor Brutus de Villeroi, professor of drawing and mathematics at the college in 1842, and who later became famous for creating the US Navy's first submarine, the USS Alligator. De Villeroi may have inspired Verne's conceptual design for the Nautilus in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, although no direct exchanges between the two men have been recorded.

The first sentence is hardly important (Latin courses were de rigeur in the 19th c.). The rest of it describes an imagined influence for which there is no evidence. (Its inclusion has been challenged for two years.) If any editor would like to restore it, please provide a source that testifies both to the fact (if de Villeroi taught there when Verne was a student) and the supposition (that Verne may have been so influenced). Richigi (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems with understanding text
I previously requested clarification of these paragraphs, but the new versions still seem lacking to me:


 * "It was Jules Verne himself who confirmed once having traveled from Stockholm, Sweden, to Christiania during 1862.[6]. Consequently, Swedish publication of Jules Verne began during the very next year[7]. En luftballongsresa genom Afrika (A Hot Air Balloon trip through Africa) actually is dated 1863 -- making it the very first dated Jules Verne full-length book on record[8]."


 * The connection between the journey and the publication history needs to be explained. Why is the journey relevant?
 * If Christiania means modern-day Oslo then it would be very hepful to say so.
 * Was this book published in translation in the Swedish language? It would be helpful to explicitly say so.


 * "Unlike En Luftballongsresa Genom Afrika, dated 1863 and published anomymously, Cinq semaines en ballon was undated (circa 1863), but noted its author. It presently is unknown whether such dating and author attribution practice was done intentionally or by accident. It also is unclear as to which book became first to reach publication despite the fact that both express largely identical story lines[9]."


 * The word 'despite' does not make sense to me. Why would near-identical storylines be expected to make it easier to tell which was published first? I would have thought the opposite.

86.177.108.222 (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have clarified that Christiania means modern-day Oslo. I have removed "consequently" since no source is stating that there is a connection.Wjhonson (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the anonymous contributor above: the two paragraphs about En Luftballongsresa Genom Afrika, an early Swedish translation of Cinq semaines en ballon, make no sense. I've gone ahead and removed them. Verne's Scandinavian journeys certainly merit a mention in the article, as do early translations, but these paragraphs confuse more than they clarify.--Lemuellio (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" Title.
Most of the editions of the book are titled "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" and so is the Wikipedia article. The previous edition on the infobox links to a non-existent page and as all the other references to the novel's title in the article are "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea", it should be left like that. Further explanation about the english translations is given in the English translations section on the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillermofdezg (talk • contribs) 12:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

French breton?
What does it mean french breton? Breton is not a nationality since Brittany was annexed by France in 1532. At least you can say that he is a French from Brittany (as i am by the way). For example, would you say for a person from Marseille that he is a French Provencal? No evidently. So i think we should remove this...--Tancrede (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a few weeks ago all mentions of "France" in this article have been replaced with "Brittany" (see edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jules_Verne&diff=404006250&oldid=403756531 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jules_Verne&diff=404026706&oldid=404015414). Since then most of it has been reverted or reformulated (hence the "french breton"). I agree, this and the rest of these edits could be undone -- 88.183.27.67 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nantes is the traditional home of the "ducs de Bretagne" and the castle in that city was the ducal residence. Otherwise though Nantes has never been closely aligned either with Breton interests or Breton culture, despite attempts by Breton nationalists to reclaim Nantes as a Breton city. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Breton is a linguistic and ethnic identity. However, I think that maybe it is not relevant unless M. Verne identified as Breton, or could be identified as Breton, elsewise he is just a Frenchman living in Brittany. Does anyone know? 203.49.129.67 (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I made the change on the article stating that he is a Frenchman from Brittany.--Tancrede 14:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(Regarding Breton vs. French, it's rather like English vs. Welsh.) Mr. Verne's father was from Paris, and his mother of Brittany, so: "I am a mixture of Breton and Parison blood." In a letter he also once said "I stick to my ideas like a Breton" (Bretons have a reputation of being stubborn.) There was a Scottish ancestor way back on his mother's side too ... a Scotsman named Allot emigrated to France in the 15th century and joined Louis XI's Scottish Archers. --Maricatrin —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

It is still anti-French racism. For ten years the number of English on the Internet imply that there is no French person who does something remarkable in history. So we see become French Breton, Corsican, Flemish, Basque and so on. All this is pathetic and seen on Wikipedia. --Swax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.36.193.204 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame
I revised the lead to call the Footnote [b], re the three Fathers of Science Fiction, and reworded that note so it works when called from both locations. For what it's worth, I originally wrote the note to extend the remark on Fathers (without supporting the term "Fathers of Science Fiction"). I observed that Gernsback, Wells, and Verne were/are the three eldest members of this hall of fame; about one, two, and three generations prior to all others. But I had overlooked Mary Shelley, their elder (who is never called Mother of SF as far as I know). Covering the three Fathers and Mother in half-generations: G W V and S were about 1/2, one, 2-1/2 and four generations prior to the other inductees (now 65 others). This estimate is for the back pages only.

I reworded the SFFHF paragraph partly to give the citation of Verne simply, without specifying that it appeared on the official website, thus without hinting that the citation may have been written years after 1999 (we don't know). The source copyright date is 1997–2008, last update 2008-02-22. Where the source is cited in 30-some other biographies I have omitted those dates and stated "This was the official website of the hall of fame to 2004" (eg Hugo Gernsback, note 21).

--P64 (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction between Wells and Poe.
On Wells' page, it says he and Verne and the 'fathers of Science Fiction'. On this page, it says him and a few others. The others and sources, and on Poe's page, it doesn't even say he's a SF author. -- Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count ) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 11:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In a similar vein the Belgian J.-H. Rosny is also described as one of the fathers of science fiction on his page. As he wrote in French perhaps the influence is more relevant to Vernes than even Poe. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fathers of Science Fiction, continued
 * Each of our biographies Hugo Gernsback, H. G. Wells, and Verne now observes that those three are all sometimes called the Father of Science Fiction. Each gives one source. We don't know whether either source called them, or said they are sometimes called, the Fathers of science fiction, plural. (The sources are Roberts 2008 and a Gernsback obituary whose title includes the term 'Father of Modern Science Fiction'.)
 * Update on Poe and Rosny:
 * Our Poe lead says he "is generally considered the inventor of the detective fiction genre. He is further credited with contributing to the emerging genre of science fiction.[1]" Body says he "reinvented science fiction".
 * Our J.-H. Rosny says he/"They are considered to be among the founders of modern science fiction."
 * Our Mary Shelley uses the term 'science fiction' only in External link to her SFF hall of fame "biography" and in categories (and does not use 'romance' to identify a genre). The citation/biog begins, "Mary Shelley's gothic-horror masterpiece Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus (1818) has come to be viewed as the first genuine science fiction novel."
 * --P64 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits Jules Verne (restoration).jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits Jules Verne (restoration).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 8, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jules Verne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060818230948/http://epguides.com/djk/JulesVerne/works.shtml to http://epguides.com/djk/JulesVerne/works.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Stage works?
Apparently Verne wrote many plays but there is zero coverage of them here.

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Death or dying?
Is Verne already dead in the deathbed photo? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Two Years' Vacation
Why is it not mentioned in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:13D6:6A00:C801:E9E8:6091:ACAD (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Verne Museums
There is a small and enjoyable Verne Museum in Nantes overlooking the Loire. See https://julesverne.nantesmetropole.fr/home.html. Perhaps worthy of a mention in the article along with any other museums dedicated to Jules Verne. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)