Talk:P. G. Wodehouse/Archive 1

The Inimitable Jeeves
This book seems to be missing from the bibliography, although it is indeed a very real and very Wodehouse-written book in the Jeeves series.


 * I think most of the books should be removed from the bibliography, since it has List of books by P. G. Wodehouse, where "Inimitable Jeeves" appears. I will remove most of them from this article, leaving summaries of the categories. - DavidWBrooks 13:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Baxter
"Wodehouse's servants are frequently far smarter than their masters. This is quintessentially true with Jeeves, who always pulls Bertie Wooster out of the direst scrapes. It recurs elsewhere, such as the efficient Baxter, secretary to the befogged Lord Emsworth"

When has Baxter ever pulled Emsworth out of a scrape, maybe the inverse is true. Surely Baxter is known only to help Connie.
 * The quoted text doesn't say that Baxter pulls Emsworth out of scrapes. If you read it carefully you will see that it merely says that Baxter is smarter than Emsworth. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't read the text carefully. -- Wikipaiyan 10:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Wooster's aunts
"Bertie Wooster's terrorising aunts Agatha and Dahlia" Aunt Dahlia was Wooster's favorite relative!

Even so, Bertie still regarded Aunt Dahlia as a terror, as she often forced him into doing things he did not want to do (albeit more nicely than Aunt Agatha!)

Is it worth mentioning that Wodehouse's female characters (Aunts included) are generally much more forceful (if that's the word I want) than his male characters. As Bertie Wooster would say "the F of the S is more D than the M."


 * Kipling actually (and PGW does attribute it to "Old Pop Kipling" in at least one book. The full text of the poem is at http://www.potw.org/archive/potw96.html - well worth a read srs 04:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Woops, I thought it was obvious, but I should have attributed it. Sorry Jen Powell-Psmith 04:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Galahad Threepwood
Surely Gally Threepwood deserves at least a mention among Wodehouse's memorable characters. A true philanthrop, he might one of the most interesting characters created by Plum.--Khodadad 05:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be interesting to point out his best-known novels, the ones that should not be missed because they are in the collective memory?Zigzig20s 06:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Life - Early Employment
Surely Wodehouse never really worked at the HSBC Bank; unless it was in China. HSBC only acquired The Midland Bank in 1992 before that its European presence began as a minor share holder of The Midland in 1987. When Wodehouse worked for the bank it would have been known as the The London City and Midland Bank. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he worked for this bank adding if necessary that it was taken over by the HSBC in 1992? If any records of this employment came to light would they mention HSBC? Shropman 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All my Penguin editions, most of which were printed long before 1987, say he worked at the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank (not "HSBC Bank"). Why shouldn't it have an office in the financial centre of the world even before becoming entangled with the Midland?  &mdash;Tamfang 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * True. And there's Psmith in the City - Mike Jackson is more or less a semi autobiographical version of PGW, and he is forced to join "The New Asiatic Bank" after school instead of "going up to the coll" - that is, going to oxford or cambridge, mostly for the cricket there. The bank he joins (I'm paraphrasing here) is one of those banks with vast branches in far flung areas, with the london office a kind of holding area where people receive a year or so of training in the various departments, starting from the mail room, and are then packed off overseas to manage a tiny branch in some remote asian city.


 * "'You look on the gloomy side, Comrade Jackson. I seem to see you sitting in an armchair, fanned by devoted coolies, telling some Eastern potentate that you can give him five minutes. I understand that being in a bank in the Far East is one of the world's softest jobs. Millions of natives hang on your lightest word. Enthusiastic rajahs draw you aside and press jewels into your hand as a token of respect and esteem. When on an elephant's back you pass, somebody beats on a booming brass gong! The Banker of Bhong! Isn't your generous young heart stirred to any extent by the prospect? I am given to understand--'" srs 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Birth?
Wasn't Wodehouse born in India? I thought so? Can anyone corroborate this?  Gautam ''' Discuss 08:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No - he was born in Surrey, England. - DavidWBrooks 13:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Infertility
"He had no natural children, owing to his having contracted mumps as a young man."

Do we know for sure that he had no biological children due to this? Infertility isn't the sort of thing a man (especially at the time in which Wodehouse lived, I should imagine) would find easy to say even in an autobiography, less still to tell another person so that they could put it in a diary somewhere for P.G.oholics to unearth as evidence, so I think we need some citation. Quite apart from the fact that some married couples consciously decide not to have children between them, although it is true that mumps can cause sterility in men, my grandfather had it as a youngster and I think it is fair to say that I am living proof of the fact that it doesn't necessarily apply to all!

CO.


 * Define "youngster"? I've heard that mumps cause infertility only if contracted after adolescence, but that may be mere folklore.  &mdash;Tamfang 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Seventy Years
The intro sentence says that Wodehouse "has enjoyed enormous popular success for more than seventy years" - is this right? Seventy years ago was 1937, whereas Wodehouse's first book was published in 1902. The intro sentence implies that Wodehouse didn't become popular until 35 years into his career, something that I find hard to believe. --BehemothCat 07:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The last edit was to add that word has, to remove the implication that PGW is no longer popular. Before that edit, the sentence made sense: PGW "enjoyed popular success" from about 1902 to 1975.  &mdash;Tamfang 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Boarding school
Wodehouse only saw his parents every six or seven years whilst at boarding school? Can that be right, or should it be months instead of years? kylet 12:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think that it should be months. If it was truly years, he would only have visited his parents once during his scholastic career. It is far more likely that he went home once for the Christmas holidays and once for the summer holidays each year. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be far more likely nowadays, when the journey to Hong Kong takes less than a day, but in the late 19th century, travelling by steamship, by the time he got there it would be time to come home again! Although his mother took him out to Hong Kong when he was a few months old, he was sent back to England for his schooling and never visited Hong Kong again. He only saw his parents when his father had 'home leave', which would have been only every two-three years. Jimmy Pitt 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Performing flea
"English literature's performing flea" isn't an insult - it's a delightful compliment! Penguin put it on the outside of most of its books, and Plum himself quoted it with pleasure. Maybe it shouldn't be in the intro, but it's not a criticism. I may move it yet again. - DavidWBrooks 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it belongs in the article - it's a nice turn of phrase, if nothing else, and only arguably an insult - but I'm not sure it's a topline piece of info. I like it where it is now. Having said that, I won't be very upset if it's moved. --Rayray 16:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It was not intended as a compliment; its author, Sean O'Casey, was sneering at the award to Wodehouse of an honorary doctorate by Oxford University. Wodehouse chose to treat the comment humorously and deflected the insult by using the phrase as the title of one of his quasi-autobiographical books. Jimmy Pitt 15:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A little research finds that you are quite correct! I retract my above statement ... almost two years later ... - 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWBrooks (talk • contribs)

RFC (British vs. English)

 * Copy of RFC statement: Nationality description (general recurrent issue): in the lead, "British writer" pertains to the official citizenship/passport (UK), but nationalists prefer "English writer" or "Scottish writer", etc. Encyclopedic compromise was "British writer from England". One editor edit-wars to replace the compromise with "English writer" only.


 * Notes from nominator:
 * Please see a lot of initial ground already covered in the eponymous section above.
 * (P.S.) A third section was started just below, where other points have been made.
 * Far beyond this one article, this issue is massively recurrent on Wikipedia. I had it recently on British/Scottish Graeme Garden (stopped after a WP:ANI debate, archive), and right now I just saw it listed in 2 bio RFCs for Talk:Andy Murray (tennis) and Talk:Colin McRae with the same problem/solution/war. Maybe some grouping of those 3 RFC's is possible? (I'm going to ping them both.) And apparently, we'll need an official policy to stop this, since even compromises don't work.

&mdash; Komusou talk @ 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue is actually discussed in above. The examples which Kumusou would drag into this are not parallel; they are athletes on the UK team for various events, and for some of them there is likely to be a debate whether they are English or Scots. Neither of these applies here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC) For that matter, I see no effort on Komusou's part to compromise; he has now reverted three times to the same text, which I object to largely because it isn't English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you felt the need to re-state that it's discussed at when it was already clearly stated in the nomination... But the "British writer from England" wording was *already* a compromise between team B that only want "British" and team E that only want "English". If we have team B asking for "10" and team E asking for "20", and we compromise in the middle at "15", then your team E can't just come again and demande a new compromise between "15" and "20", or impose "20". You're not compromising, you're demanding it back to team E's "English" only, via a weasel wording that eliminates tream B's "British/UK" entirely. You can't claim compromising when you just try to impose one side's view and eliminate the other side's view entirely. You are the one not making any effort to compromise, so don't try accusing me of your own sins. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 20:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have now reverted four times in order to prevent a non-existent revert war, and preserve your badly written text. I trust you will reconsider in the next 24 hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, reverting vandalism/information-removal/unencyclopedic isn't covered by the 3RR rule... &mdash; Komusou talk @ 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please supply diffs of "vandalism". I'm sure ArbCom will be fascinated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I suggest we (Komusou and Pmanderson) both take a break or the night off, (1) so that we cool off instead of re-hashing the same points a 4rd and 5th time, and (2) so that cooler heads have the time to notice the RFC and hopefully provide us with food for thought we haven't even touched. [...] And ninthly, at any rate *I* am off. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

British vs. English
Most UK-related articles seem to be battlegrounds for recurrent petty wars between "British" and "English". The two most recent examples on the PGW article being on 2 August 2007 (deleting "British") and on 9 September 2007 (deleting "England"), going both sides, alike only in their being both concealed with fake WP:MINOR edit tags and deceptive edit summaries.

On the one hand, putting "English" is as true and incomplete as only saying that Flaubert was a Normand writer or that Brautigan was an Oregon writer, and leave it at that. On the other hand, having only "British" (the sovereign nation, U.N. member, and passport) seems to triggers endless lame wars from both sides. Plus, English/England is an additional piece of information.

So I document here for the record (it was already documented in my edit summaries) that I had set the lead section and the infobox to what I see as an encyclopedic compromise:


 * (infobox) Nationality: 🇬🇧 British (English)


 * (lead section) ...was a British comic writer from England...

And of course, I'm reverting the recent vandalism edit.

P.S. For similar reasons, the infobox documents his dual citizenship completely, with date and age of acquisition, as:


 * U.S. (1955, aged 74)

&mdash; Komusou talk @ 15:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * When I took out what appeared to me to be a minor redundancy, I did not know this was such a touchy issue for some people. I have no interest in trying to force a point of view on what looks like a minority issue, so I'll stay away from editing this wording further. You might be a little more careful accusing people of "vandalism" or "deceptive" edit summaries. Perhaps that happens in some cases, but assuming it automatically is not good wikipedia practice. Mlouns 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Has it occurred to Komosou that there is a difference between England and Normandy? Large numbers of Anglophones would have to look up Normandy, or Oregon, to be sure what they meant. But England?? (He may also wish to consult a dictionary; the English adjective is Norman, even for Flaubert.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a better solution than the awkward "British comic writer from England" in the opening sentence? I really don't care if you want to call him "British" or "English" or what, but this phrasing just limps -- and is especially clunky to describe a writer who was himself a master of sparkling phrasing. Mlouns 15:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully concur. The issue should arise for those writers who are not, or arguably not, English; for those of non-English birth, descent, or self-identification, it's necessary.


 * Wodehouse, however, was a Norfolk man, who was born in Guildford, schooled at Dulwich, and spent his life, before he left for America, in and around London. He was, and called himself, an Englishman; he ceased to be a British subject. This is bad writing, to make a non-existent point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For comparison, to call John Buchan English would be a clear error; to call Sir Arthur Conan Doyle English would be disputable, although we call Doyle Scottish, which is only slightly better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First a belated note about your 9 September 2007 post: the original text above was NOT about you at all. If you look at the diff links given, you'll see they were about two other users. (The second one deleted "England" while concealing the deed with a fake WP:MINOR tag and a deceptive "fixed cut-paste error" summary.) If you look at the article history, it just so happened that you came in a few hours later and deleted "British", also concealed as a WP:MINOR edit, but at least with a frank edit summary, so I reverted you with "rv as per talk page bis, third time this is concealed as a fake minor edit" but the talk page was already there and not about you.
 * Mlouns:

As for your question today, I don't see another solution, but you're free to try and suggest. And I don't think that an encyclopedia's goal is to mimic his subject's writing, else not much people would want to read our articles about William S. Burroughs, Marcel Proust, or James Joyce. I'm not saying articles have to be flat, dry, and boring – for instance I have rewritten the Aunt Dahlia article trying to interpolate as much juicy Wodehouse quotes and inconspicuous running gags as possible while maintaining a Jeevesianly straight encyclopedic face, so I'm not adverse to what you're saying – but encyclopedic tone and editing peace have to trump "sparkling phrasing".

Also, I think it seems awkward to you in this case only because there is such as massive, international conflation of "British" and "English" (thus a popular error makes it look somewhat redundant), but the format isn't so awkward if you consider "a British writer from Scotland", "a Canadian writer from Quebec", "a Belgian writer from Flanders", "a Spanish writer from the Basque Country", "a French writer from Corsica", "a Dutch writer from Holland" (not even going into former countries such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia) and other entities with a history of independance, nationalism, separatism, or terrorism (and ethnic-warring on Wikipedia). It's a compromise, and most compromise are a bit awkward, but better awkward than hawk war. (I'll get me coat.) &mdash; Komusou talk @ 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

British/UK is the sovereign nation, the passport, the U.N. member, the embassies – all dictionaries and encyclopedias use only "British" and other sovereign nations, so even adding "English" as outlined above is already a compromise and more than what you'd get in standard encyclopedias. Only on Wikipedia's open model are articles so often sabotaged by nationalist or ethnic claims and counter-claims, usually from people who scarcely contribute to articles besides trying to claim as much famous people as possible for their "team". Furthermore, your putting only "English" is not simply unencyclopedic and thus immediately reversible, it is also an invitation to constant warring between "English" and "British" as was already the case on this article, and as is the case on most articles with similar problems. Your uncompromising, undiscussed change is thus unencyclopedic, POV, divisive, and reverted. (Also, if you have to fallback on petty personal attacks based on (mis)spelling, you implicitely admit having no point.) &mdash; Komusou talk @ 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson:
 * I have no idea what Kosumou's peculiar idea of nationality is intended to suggest; but the text on which he suggests is neither neutral, accurate, nor English. The claim that this is unencyclopedic is nonsense; the Britannica says English-born, which will cover Wodehouse's actual citizenship nicely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was updating the Adaptations section, but It's really hard to work with unproductive ethnic terrorists at it. Wikipedia is not Britannica, and none of the important points (constant edit wars without a compromise wording, sovereign nation, inaccuracy of not mentioning British/UK, POV of chosing a non-sovereign nation against the official UK, etc.) are addressed, and you didn't sustained or justified any of your claims. Please stop vandalizing while I initiate the next step of the Resolving disputes process. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For reference, I am not British, in any sense of that much abused word. I do, however, agree with Mlouns that this is bad and unidiomatic writing. I will be restoring the Britannica's ingenious compromise, which neatly fields the only real ambiguity here, whether Wodehouse is English or American.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your "English-born writer" wording doesn't even namecheck the sovereign nation/passport, UK/British, which is incomplete and unencyclopedic. It's like only saying that Bush is a Connecticut-born politician, period, or that Brautigan is an Oregon-born writer, period. Not to mention how all Texas articles or such would be happy with just "Texas-born" and no mention of the U.S. It is not "ingenious", but just an incomplete, unencyclopedic, and divise weasel wording. There ARE reasons why Wikipedia is slowly burying Britannica, and you showed one more. We don't have to repeat or follow Britannica's errors. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wodehouse, of course, ceased to carry a British passport. Wikipedia will never prevail as long as it is edited by inventing rules like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, physically having or carrying a passport is irrelevant to the point. Similarly to a criterion at a trial, the objective point is "What passport could this person have had?". Wodehouse had, and could have had still, a British passport, but no English passport since none exists. People are citizens of a sovereign nation, whether they bother to ask a passport or not; the fact that a given person has or could have a given passport is one simple and valid way of examining nationality. It is of course not the only one, Wodehouse's nationality at birth is citizen of the UK, but against nationalist claims the passport criterion makes examination easier, because it cuts very quickly through the British/English smog: British passport? Yes. English passport? No. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 10:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality
I've restored the adjective-free intro. Let me summarize the options:


 * "British" — this draws the ire of English nationalists, Scottish nationalists, any nationalists who aren't fond of Britain.
 * "English" — this draws the corresponding ire of unionists.
 * "English-born British" or "British (born in England)" or some similar version — this, while perfectly accurate and NPOV, draws the ire of those of us who prefer that literary articles not begin with clunkingly ugly writing. Several versions have been proposed; none is remotely beautiful.
 * no adjective — whose ire does this draw? I don't know.

The nationalists and unionists can fight all they want to; but can't they go somewhere else to do so? This article isn't about nationality, it's about a writer (and, indeed, one notable, not to say notorious, for his geopolitical naïvite). Can't we leave him in peace? Doops | talk 14:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Still works for me. If someone else feels this has been cleaned up, feel free to remove the cleanup tag; but after seeing that Wodehouse was reticent to have his books adapted by Hollywood, I suspect this could use a general copyedit, preferably by a native speaker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This adjective-free version reads so much better. The missing adjectives are implicit in the following sentences as well as the side panel, so their information is still easily accessible. I vote to keep it this way. Mlouns 23:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I also removed the "cleanup" tag because I hate those stupid things - they are so vague as to be pointless (why not put a tag that says "This article could be better than it is" on every single article?) and a real visual obstacle. If others feel strongly that the tag is needed and replace it, however, I won't remove it again. - DavidWBrooks 13:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An observation regarding the English / British debate
I've always been under the impression that for most of his life, Wodehouse considered himself more or less an American... :) Doops | talk 20:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That would also be acceptable, although it would require somewhat lengthy explanation if we're going to use it in the first sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. I actually had a somewhat serious point below my joke: that perhaps another way out of this silly debate is to question why we feel the need for a nationality label in the first sentence. So many biographies start that way— elevating nationality much beyond its real importance. Doops | talk 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that's an idea. Feel free. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a go. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Tim Vickers 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I see we still have "considered a quintessentially English writer" below, so any necessary point is made. Someone (Orwell?) remarked that Wodehouse's reputation in England was of importing Americanisms; so the connection with Runyon may be closer than we make out. His gansters speak Runyonese. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * frankly this is quibbling. He made his reputation in England long before the first American novels. He lived in america because of political problems after WWII. quintessentially English is just right as a description. DGG (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim Vickers: I'm sorry, but your proposal can not be said to be a "compromise". Let me explain.
 * Team 1 wants "British/UK" to appear. Team 2 wants "English/England" to appear. A merge was the honorable compromise, resulting in "British writer from England", keeping good-faith and goodwill members of Team 1 and Team 2 happy. However, your proposal is just Team 2 material, i.e. deleting "British/UK" entirely and leaving only "English/England". Thus your proposal is equivalent to describing Loreena McKennitt as "a singer and harpist. She was born in Morden, Manitoba." and leaving out entirely "Canada/Canadian" from the picture.
 * Furthermore, I find it even more divisive in that it explicitely mentions "American citizenship" but never "British citizenship", so now many Brits would want to edit-war on such offence. I'm also unhappy with the placement, because it is breaking the previous link between two sentences, the one about his success, then the one about why he got famous for. Your bit about where he is born and lived is inserted out of nowhere in the middle.
 * Also, it is inaccurate or incomplete since he lived between the UK and U.S., then mostly in France, then in the U.S., and it's hard to summarize all this and more in a single short sentence in the lead. Besides, the WP:LEAD is a concise summary that doesn't have to explain the detail of where someone lived.

For a compromise, both "British/UK" and "English/England" have to be somehow integrated, at a relative same level. They would include at least:


 * (A, the original) ... was a British comic writer from England ...
 * (B, based on original) ... was a British comic writer born in England ...
 * (C, based on PMAnderson) ... was an England-born British comic writer ...
 * (D, based on Tim Vickers) ... was a comic writer. He was born in England, UK, and became a U.S. citizen in 1955.

I am now editing to C, because of the issues I find with "D", and avoiding going back to A/B in a goodwill attempt to compromise with PMAnderson (I'm not ethnic-warring so I don't care much whether England or the UK comes out first in the sentence), without sacrificing the basic of the sovereign nation. It's just not possible to delete "UK" or "Canada" or other sovereign nations. Everybody is of course free to propose other versions or tweaks of these ones, but they should be justified, outlining what they have better than the above ones and why, so that an informed debate can take place. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 10:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your POV, for which you are warring. Stop! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: whatever changes are done, please do not leave out the prominent HTML comment, it is important that any new person wanting to edit this bit be informed that it's an issue detailed on the talk page. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have two objections.
 * First, the "basic of the sovereign nation" is something Komusou has invented; it is neither policy nor practice, and I see no one who agrees with him. It is particularly unnecessary here: Wodehouse ignored sovereignty all his life, even when it would have been more prudent not to. Revert warring for this is abominable, and I will cheerfully endorse a conduct RfC.
 * More seriously still, "England-born British comic writer" is execrable, unidiomatic, English, and I have so tagged it.

On the question of which method: I would accept C, with decent writing; but I prefer D: He was born in Surrey and lived in England and France, later becoming an American citizen. gives the facts; if anything is needed to conciliate the phantasm of the "basic of sovereignty", we can add "was born a British subject in Surrey".Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it sad that anyone considers political status to trump everything else in questions of cultural identity. —Tamfang 10:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually like the way the lead reads today, namely, "was a comic writer". However, if that is not acceptable, then I suggest for the lead, replacing nationality with the word "cosmopolitan".  The exact specifics of his peregrinations are dealt with in the article.  However, I should note that an English author is always a Brit, even when an ex-pat, and the normal rule is to be as specific as the subject allows.  So one won't call Mao just an Asian. Of course one could always say "English author" and have the link point to English language. I do think that between the two, Team 2 has the better argument; but I would rather try to prevent future edit wars with a less than perfect compromise, than have the article be absolutely "right". I would pick version D in Septentrionalis' version. --Bejnar 20:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Age Photo
Is it really necessary to include the old wrinkled photograph of PG's last days? The younger version seems sufficient. At any rate, we don't do the same for film actors of yore, do we? Not even for other authors.220.226.83.31 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Sourav.sg
 * Compare William Butler Yeats, George Bernard Shaw, and Bertrand Russell. The well-known image of W. H. Auden in old age does seem to be missing, unfortunately, but the photo given is from 1953. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

 * Author Kyril Bonfiglioli appears to have modelled his series of crime novels on Wodehouse's style. Bonfiglioli's major characters (Mortdecai and Jock) bear a fun-house mirror relation to Wodehouse's Wooster and Jeeves.
 * Hugh Laurie, the actor who portrayed Wooster in the TV series Jeeves and Wooster, has said that Wodehouse's novels saved him from depression. It has been remarked that Laurie's novel The Gun Seller bears much resemblance to Jeeves and Wooster.
 * Author Lawrence Sanders based his character Archie McNally, the bonvivant sleuth and head of Discreet Inquiries for his patrician father's Palm Beach law firm, on an amalgam of Wodehouse's characters Jeeves and Wooster.
 * Wodehouse made use of the Paint-on-the-Shoe scene in both Mike, chapter 49 and the Blandings book Something Fresh, chapter 9. Apart from character names and a few changes to fit the different plots, the scenes are practically identical.


 * Seeing the above move - I don't mind trivia sections in general, but this list is WAY too trivial. Good job removing it from the article - DavidWBrooks 19:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The last actually says something interesting: Wodehouse abandoned Mike so far that he felt free to mine it for material. But this probably belongs in a discussion of the book. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Writer of that paragraph here: Yes, it hasn't progressed, so I'm happy to see it go. (Not to happy about the rv wars here, honestly, English/British???? Get a life, boys!!) The main reason for putting that trivia there, and the accompanying talk section, was to see if others knew if he did this often. There were no bites, so it seems if this was a one-off. While poor literary style, I found it amusing when I ran across it (I read Something Fresh first) in Mike. And amusement was what Wodehouse is all about, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbak (talk • contribs) 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

P.G. Wodehouse discrepancy
In the Lord Haw-Haw, in the notes section, it claims that Wodehouse broadcast under protest. However, in this article, it claims he did it under his own free will. Neither claims are referenced although there is a reference in this article that states Wodehouse "was naive and foolish, but not a traitor". Does anyone know a citable source that can clarify his stance further as to coerced or otherwise? I have posted a similar message on the Lord Haw-Haw talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking further at it, it appears that it was recently (17th May 2008) edited by a user who only made that one edit. I have been bold and reverted it, however I think a bit more citation is needed.  Or does that reference on the paragraph cover the whole paragraph? StephenBuxton (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Below is verbatim from ODNB.


 * There he was tricked into making five humorous broadcasts on German radio, of wholly innocent content, to the United States, then not at war, about his experiences as a prisoner.


 * Not a single one of the charges against him was true. The MI5 investigation—tragically for Wodehouse not made public in his lifetime—found no evidence whatsoever of treachery.


 * Lucian Sunday (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up, both on here and the Lord Haw-Haw article - much appreciated! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tricked or not, he was apparently supported by the Nazis. It seems impossible Wodehouse didn't know who was paying the freight. From "American Swastika," by Charles Higham (Doubleday, 1985): "...recently declassified documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act disclose a fact that ... (Wodehouse) was in the direct pay of the German Government, and in accepting that pay was guilty of treason. On page six of a report made by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, and prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Forces' European Theater Military Intelligence Service Center, dated November 28, 1945, Ribbentrop stated under oath, 'Towards the end [of the war] I was made responsible for paying [Wodehouse's] expenses whilst he was in Paris.' " Captqrunch (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Again this is verbatim (Iain Sproat, ‘Wodehouse, Sir Pelham Grenville (1881–1975)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004)
 * In 1999 the British Public Record Office released papers, previously kept secret, from the files of the Foreign Office and of the Ministry of Defence concerning documents which had been discovered in the German embassy in Paris. These documents contained references to Wodehouse's being paid money by the Germans for what looked like services rendered. These references, widely publicized in the British media, appeared to reopen the case against Wodehouse. Although the various sums of money listed in the files seemed to be new evidence, this was not the case. Wodehouse did not receive any payments from the German embassy. All the sums mentioned in the documents had already been listed and explained in the financial statements given to E. J. P. Cussen, the MI5 investigator, by Wodehouse in September 1944. However, because the money was described in different ways, in different currencies, it was not clear at first that the sums were those already explained as innocent in Wodehouse's statement. The files show that by 1947 the British authorities had concluded that Wodehouse had no case to answer over either the broadcasts or the money, and in the words of the Foreign Office: ‘Mr Wodehouse made the celebrated broadcasts in all innocence and without any evil intent.’

Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro
May I request that the reference to his 'main canvas' being 'prewar' in the opening paragraph be changed to 'interwar'? To me, 'prewar' means pre-World War 1 and the best known of Wodehouse's works are clearly set between the two World Wars. I note that the Wikipedia entry for 'prewar' states that it can be used for the interwar period, which the OED supports, but I have never come across such usage myself. My experience is that when used in a vague context that spans both Wars, 'prewar' refers to pre-WW1 and it's only used for pre-WW2 in a context that clearly refers to the 30s. I haven't put through the edit in case my experience is truncated and others disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.68.40 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Something Fresh (published in 1915) clearly is not interwar, and Blandings doesn't change much after that. On the other hand, at least a few stories are set in New York during Prohibition (1920–33). —Tamfang (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As Orwell points out, Wodehouse's England in general remained distinctly Edwardian; he was picking up an old stereotype of the upper classes - in part because he spent much time outside England even between the wars. When the Germans landed an agent in spats, he was immediately caught because he was dressed so oddly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. If memory serves, Cocktail Time mentions a novel (written by someone who had had his topper knocked off by a Drone with a slingshot) whose cover depicts a young man in spats dancing the rock & roll. —Tamfang (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that far more than a 'few' stories are set in the 1920s and 1930s, and the tone of 'Something Fresh' is different to the later, better known Blandings books. Spats continued to be worn until the 30s. The cars his characters drive are 20s and 30s models and the widespread use of cars is definitely post-WW1. Wodehouse talks freely, not mincing his words, of cocktails, nightclubs (and raids thereon), films and film stars (particularly Hollywood), flappers, health farms, Agatha Christie, gangsters and many other 1920s phenomena. Most of the Ionicus covers show people dressed in 1920s clothing. He even mentions lawnmowers and television in his later works. These obviously aren't 1920s but they're even less Edwardian. It's Gally and his music-hall memories that are Edwardian and they are clearly set in the past, contrasted with the Blandings 'present' some 30 years later. The English upper class managed to insulate itself to some degree from the changes wrought by WW1 and maintain its leisurely lifestyle, which Wodehouse reflects (you can also see it in other books written in this period eg. 'Rebecca'), but to say that this proves his books are set in a quasi Edwardian era is one hell of a stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.108.159 (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Vanity Fair
Please note that PGW began making contributions to Vanity Fair much earlier than is implied by this article. In December 1903, he co-wrote a playlet with Bertram Fletcher Robinson that appeared in the Daily Express newspaper (London). Shortly thereafter, Robinson became the editor of Vanity Fair (1904-1906) and he published at least two (and probably three), further playlets that he co-wrote with PGW. Further details of their collaborations can be located within the 'External Links' section on the Robinson Wikipedia page. User:TedSherrell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.82.254 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are confusing two different magazines of the same name. The Vanity Fair referred to in the article is the US magazine of that name that was founded in 1913 and ran until 1936.  Wodehouse was an early (and significant) contributor to this magazine.  The magazine in which his joint works with Robinson appeared was an unrelated British magazine of the same name:  in the period March 1903 to October 1906, Wodehouse was a frequent contributor to this magazine, but most of his contributions were minor, often no more than a single paragraph or two. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy - many thanks for clearing this up for me. Do you have any idea whether PGW's contributions to the British VF are listed anywhere online? Thanks in anticipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.123.15 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any online source. The "authority" is McIlvaine, A Comprehensive Bibliography and Checklist, which lists a total of 82 contributions to 63 issues of the UK Vanity Fair, beginning 19 March 1903.  As I said before, many of these items are trivial:  for example, his final contributions, in the 3 October 1906 issue, were two four-line unsigned epigrams.  In case you're wondering, the reason these can be attributed to PGW is that between Feb 1900 and Feb 1908 he meticulously recorded his early journalism in a notebook, "Money received for Literary Work", which is preserved in the Wodehouse Library at his old school, Dulwich.
 * Incidentally, the collaborations with B F Robinson that McIlvaine lists are: 8 December 1904, pp 731-4: Our Christmas Pantomime: Little Red Riding Hood, or The Virtuous British Public and the Smart Set Wolf;  and 14 December 1905, pp 778-81: A Winter's Tale: King Arthur and His Court;  and, in the Daily Express, 28 December 1903, p 4: A Fiscal Pantomime. -- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy - many thanks indeed for taking both the time and trouble to respond so fully to my enquiry. It is very much appreciated indeed! I have spent nearly four years ploughing through various periodicals and I can independently confirm the three aforementioned references to collaborations between PGW and BFR (see ). However, I do have one further related question that I have been unable to resolve for myself. In 2001, the noted Sherlockian, Philip Weller had a book published that is entitled Hunting the Dartmoor Legend (see ). On page 93 he states that PGW and BFR also co-authored a playlet entitled The Progressive's Progress. Apparently it was published just a few days before BFR died (21st January 1907). At that time, BFR was editing The World: a Journal for Men and Women. Can I ask whether you have ever heard of this playlet? Any help would be very gratefully received. Thanks in anticipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TedSherrell (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to McIlvaine, The Progressive's Progress, co-authored by Robinson and Wodehouse, was published in The World in January 1907. Oddly, however, while she gives the precise issue date for 11 other Wodehouse contributions to The World, this one is dated only to the month.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy - many many thanks - that has really made my day! The World was a weekly publication so tracking down the item will be relatively easy and I shall get a friend of mine to conduct some research at the Collingdale. I have several books pending publication in which, I wish to refer to this reference and I would like to acknowledge your assistance in both. I realise it is not possible to list private email addresses on this forum - but please feel free to contact me via my website at BFRonline.biz (see ). I will then contact you andrequest your details should you be interested in accepting my offer of an acknowledgement? - it is the very least that I can do by way of a thank you! Warmest best wishes - —Preceding unsigned comment added by TedSherrell (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reception
This article is sorely missing a section on praise/criticism/legacy etc. The second paragraph, saying "An acknowledged master of English prose, Wodehouse has been admired..." is never substantiated. It would be good to write this section, don't you think? (Or was it written and got deleted for some reason?) Shreevatsa (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Name
Pronunciation of his name: WOOd-house vs. WOAd-house? Actually, I seem to remember hearing a TV or radio interview with him many years ago (probably when I was in college, in the early 1960s, and had a Jeeves-monkey on my back) in which the man himself said his name was properly pronounced "Wood-uss" -- sort of eliding the H and O sounds. Anybody know for sure? ---Michael K. Smith 21:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I would imagine the peculiarty of the pronunciation of his own name gives rise to the apparently absurd names he uses (certainly surprising to non-English cultures - many people don't believe those names actually exist).  Maybe I've missed it, but is there a guide anywhere here - which, it must be said in passing (and many thanx to everyone!), is probably the best thing on Wikipedia - as to the pronunciation of some of the more outrageous ones - Fotheringay-Phipps, comes to mind with Fingee Fipps. Would appreciate help! Regards, --Technopat 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno where this bit of doggerel came from: I don't like this house. It can't be a good house. I see no books by P G Wodehouse. —Tamfang (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Knighthood
Is it correct to call him "Sir". If his knighthood was bestowed after he became an American, would it not be only honorary, like Bob Geldof's? Avalon 06:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe he had dual nationality, which would mean that "Sir" was indeed correct. However, the matter is almost moot, since he was only a knight for a few weeks.


 * In some contexts "Sir" would be out of place (and in Wodehouse's case, occurrences of "Sir Pelham" would very much be the exception rather than the rule). But in this context, where the full details of his name and titles are presented, it is not only appropriate, but required, because leaving it out would be misleading.  JackofOz 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the reference to the Queen Mother on the strength of the following passage in McCrum (2004, p 414):

There is also an apocryphal story that Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, a lifelong fan, had volunteered to go to Long Island to conduct a private investiture, but was forbidden by the authorities. Close examination of the record shows that ... this is a fanciful tale.

Unfortunately, McCrum does not document this last statement. Jimmy Pitt (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Mr. Wodehouse became a U. S. Citizen in 1955, he effectively gave up his British citizenship, thus, the knighthood would indeed be honorary only, and he would not correctly be called Sir. He did not enjoy he dual-citizenship status once he became naturalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrumpRF (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a cite for him relinquishing his UK citizenship? It's not necessarily automatic just because a person becomes a citizen of another country.  It didn't happen to Anthony Hopkins, for example.  His knighthood was awarded in 1993, and he became a US citizen in 2000.  If you're correct, he could no longer be called "Sir Anthony Hopkins" after 2000, but he is. --  JackofOz (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous online sites such as which establishes his US Citizenship timeline. Perhaps the difference between Anthony Hopkins and P. G. Wodehouse is that Hopkins received his knighthood prior to becoming a US citizen. TrumpRF (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody disputes that Wodehouse became a U.S. citizen. What's at issue is whether he retained his UK citizenship, or lost it, when he became a U.S. citizen, and those links don't settle that.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. Nobody denies that Wodehouse became a US citizen. The issue is whether he relinquished his UK citizenship. He was not required to do so: your assertion that he "effectively gave up his British citizenship" is inaccurate, as the US Government recognises dual citizenship and in 1952 the US Supreme Court ruled that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other" (see here).  None of the several biographies of Wodehouse makes any mention of him giving up his British citizenship, which would tend to suggest that he maintained dual citizenship after 1955, in which case the use of "Sir" is correct. It may also be relevant that when The Times published the New Year and Birthdays Honours Lists, it used to (may still do, though I haven't checked) distinguish honorary awards as "(Hon)" after the relevant letters: it made no such distinction when Wodehouse's name appeared in the New Year Honours published on 2 January 1975. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Move to "P.G."
This article was moved to P.G. Wodehouse a few hours ago; I've moved it back, given that the edit wasn't explained, and that every related article uses the "P. G." formatting. WP:NCP favours neither one or the other. --McGeddon (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Style
P.G Wodehouse's writing style involves strange plot devices such as engagements to get out of, cow-creamers to recover and so on and so on.

There ought to be more reference to the irony of his reputation -  that those who dislike him regard him as a lightweight writer of trivialities, whereas some of the great authors identify him as one of the most accomplished of all writers. When he started making good money in London after 1918, he detested the social life, and just wanted to be left alone to write. On his deathbed in 1975, nurses found a notebook where he was trying to improve the lyrics of 'Bill', which he had penned with huge success almost fifty years before. A dedicated craftsman indeed, and apparently quite dull company. 81.158.174.209 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

possible mistake?
"Wodehouse was a prolific author, writing ninety-six books in a career spanning from 1902 to 1977."

but he expired on 1975.

ephraim


 * Well spotted. I think the person who wrote "1977" was confused by PGW's posthumous publications. Now fixed. --Heron 11:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A back-flap blurb on one of his books read something like this: "PG Wodehouse is over seventy, and has written more than ninety books, or, he is over ninety and has written more than seventy books. Either way, the figures are striking."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SingingZombie (talk • contribs) 08:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lord Knubble of Knopp
I hope no one minds my mentioning him in CHARACTERS; he gets so little mention that he ought to have some here. He's almost always offstage altogether except for being a guest at parties and losing at cards, but he often is mentioned as having something to do with the plot of a piece--someone gets a position of trust, or a membership in a club, on his recommendation, or whatever. I've never made a formal count but if you read the whole Mulliner series and the whole Golf series you encounter his name numorously, and, no matter how much Wodehouse you read you can never be sure you've seen the last of him. SingingZombie (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One could refer to Who's Who in Wodehouse by Daniel Garrison. (Alas my copy is in one of many boxes.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Browne
Actually whilst not denigrating the linguistic prowess of 'Plum' I think you will find that the name of Sir Thomas Browne's name occurs far more frequently in the OED than Wodehouse. Incidentally Browne knew the Wodehouse's of Kimberley Norfolk whose ancestors fought at Agincourt, but whether related to the master of the social yarns of P.G. I dunno.Norwikian 14:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The "Wodehouse's"? It is now official that "apostrophe-s" designates plurality and "s" stands for possession. It's ubiquitous. Every house has a sign that reads something like "The Smith's," "The Brown's," or "The Anderson's."Lestrade (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Newsflash: people don't always punctuate correctly. Congratulations on catching it in only six years and a bit. —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been reverted by a bot to as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A very bad edit, which reverted several valid edits. There was, in fact, no copyvio, merely the addition of a good (albeit duplicated) reference. Bots such as this should be properly tested before being allowed to run wild.  Jimmy Pitt   talk  09:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Writers influenced by PG Wodehouse
Should there be a section specifically devoted to PG Wodehouse's very wide influence on, and recognition by, other writers? As I recall, the "Oxford Book of Humorous Prose" singles him out for that specific reason. The introduction briefly mentions this, but there is nothing in the main body of the article. One of the great joys of wikipedia, after all, is that it enables a reader to trace 'lines of influence' between writers, thinkers, artists etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.57.223 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Pre-War" in the intro.
The intro says "Despite the political and social upheavals that occurred during his life, much of which was spent in France and the United States, Wodehouse's main canvas remained that of pre-war English upper-class society, reflecting his birth, education, and youthful writing career."

Considering he lived for a long time after WWII (although I guess that would be 'inter-war') it might be worth noting that the war referenced is WWI (I assume) as he was 33 when it started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.53.4 (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

crit
A summary of the key criticism of PGW and its development is needed, notably the nice and rather plausible contention (the critic's name escapes me at present) that Bertie Wooster is not actually dim-witted, but engaged in a permanent game of consistent irony to this effect with both Jeeves and the reader. Deipnosophista (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

buzzer novels
User:FlashSheridan recommends the "buzzer novels" – which are they? &mdash;Tamfang 18:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked that question at his/her User page - and this was his/her answer:
 * "Buzzer" was a term used by at least one Wodehouse critic (I'm afraid I've forgotten his name) for a class of protagonist: young, male, and overly-confident but good-hearted. My particular favorite is Uneasy Money, but there are many others. FlashSheridan 05:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the term "buzzer" was used by Wodehouse himself. He first used it in a short story, "Love Me, Love My Dog", in 1910. He doesn't seem to have used it again until the book "Money in the Bank", written while he was interned and published in 1942. The term refers to a certain type of young man who, as Wodehouse himself put it (in "Love Me, Love My Dog"), has the "gift of conversation". Some critics, such as Richard Usborne, have described the character Psmith as the quintessential 'buzzer', which may explain the erroneous notion that the term was invented by a critic. Jimmy Pitt 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, you’re quite right; there’s now an on-line citation for this, with some more detail, at the invaluable Terry Mordue’s annotations to Money in the Bank
 * — FlashSheridan (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusing passage

 * "When the text of his commentaries was published in the UK many years later, several short sentences were suppressed (probably by Wodehouse himself) which showed him being relatively friendly to the German military when they arrived at Le Touquet. Wodehouse believed he would be admired as showing himself to have "kept a stiff upper lip" during his internment,[18] but he misjudged the mood in wartime England, where the broadcasts led to many accusations of collaborationism with the Germans and even treason. Some libraries banned his books."

This reads as if the publication of his commentaries led to the accusations of collaboration, or at least contributed to them, and yet the commentaries were published in the UK "many years later", when the "mood in wartime England" would no longer have been relevant. I find the passage rather confusing, but I don't know anything about this topic and don't feel confident about fixing it myself. 86.160.223.239 (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If I understand the sequence of events, this passage would be clearer if the two sentences were simply swapped. —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Date of setting of books

 * "Wodehouse's main canvas remained that of pre-1914 English upper-class society"

I thought the "Jeeves and Wooster" stories, which are some of his best known, were primarily set in the 1920s - 1930s. "pre-war" was changed to "pre-1914" in this edit, which is also mentioned above, but are we quite sure that the original "pre-war" really was meant to refer to WW1? 86.160.223.239 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly some are set in New York during Prohibition, 1920–33. —Tamfang (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The more I look at this, the more "pre-1914" seems wrong, so I have put it back to "pre-war". 86.129.17.75 (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * However, I've now just realised that "...reflecting his birth, education and youthful writing career" doesn't exactly match the 1920s - 1930s timeframe. I am increasingly confused about this sentence. I hope someone can come along and resolve it properly. 86.160.216.218 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The characters, especially the principals such as Bertie et al. and Lord Emsworth, are clearly formed and informed by a pre-WW 1 sensibility; but the world is changing around them, blithely clueless as the Empress herself though they may be, and such characters as the tinpot Mussolini wannabe Roderick Spode dimly reflect that. I hope I have struck a happy middle ground in my recent edit. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This Article lacks references
This is obviously a fan page sans references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alelover (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Satire: "He found himself in a state of rebellion against the very stuff—the very thing that would make him see the world as it is...and yet...." I agree with you, anonymous poster. I wouldn't call it what you did, but the prose in this article needs some help. o0drogue0o 14:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

capital madness
In the ahnentafel, why is England abbreviated ENG? Ugh. —Tamfang (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

centrality
Is Galahad "less central" than the earl? Seems to me that Galahad appears on stage more often and, of course, far more actively. —Tamfang (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversy
I don't think that this article gives due prominence to the controversy of Wodehouse's wartime broadcasts. Whilst the controversy is now often given undue prominence in discussions of the author, it seems strange that what is, in some ways, the defining incident of Wodehouse's life has been buried in a section titled "Life in France". As mentioned in the section above, it's pretty much the only part of Wodehouse's life that Biographers (and journalists) are interested in. Any thoughts? 138.253.249.67 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Yesterday (7/2/2013) I inserted a summary of Orwell's A Defense of P.G.Wodehouse, a 1947 essay explaining the situation very well. and it has already been taken out without any explanation.
 * There was an explanation: the edit note said "Sorry but this amount of detail belongs if anywhere in a separate article" and suggested that it should be turned into a separate article - your edit was long and hard to read in bullet form, to be honest. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Having said that, you're right that it's underplayed: I've added a short paragraph to the introduction about it (which probably needs editing, like most writing). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

False accusation of anti-semitism
It might be in the article already somehwere, but its not particularily clear and I havnt read the whole thing, but it seems the fact that Wodehouse was a Nazi-sympathiser has been ommited from the article, and even if it has been added its a big enough thing to go under a 'Criticism' or 'Controversy' section. I dont have a source to hand, but I can probably find one, however I thought it was quite a well known fact that Wodehouse was an anti-semite. I can tell you now Im not one of those eidtors who go running around tagging everyone as anti-semitic, but this guy was (as was notbale of many people of his day, especially in the higher echelons of British society). I think it deserves a mention at least as Fagin has a mention of a possible anti-semitic caricature of a Jew, and Wodehouse was far more clearly anti-semitic than Dikens.172.213.64.230 (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about his anti-semitism; it may merit a mention if you can find some legitimate sources that discuss anti-semitism in his work. He was, however, not a Nazi sympathizer: it is fairly clear that it simply never occurred to him that his co-operation with the Nazis during his imprisonment in France would be construed as treasonous by his countrymen. As far as I know he was without politics. He attests to these facts himself in his interview with The Paris Review, and (if I recall correctly) Robert McCrum reaches the same conclusion in his biography Wodehouse: A Life. &mdash; Dan | talk 00:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should assume good faith and therefore not regard that comment as a troll. So we'll just regard it as absurd. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Im no troll, the Nazi-syupathiser part may seem unsubstantiated (however living in France during wartime dosent stop you being a Nazi-sympathiser), personally im slightly doubtful of that as well, seing as his writings seem to carry an anti-autocratic theme. However I have been told, that he was an anti-semite, and have read it 'somewhere; (yes I know... Ill try and get a source), however I have only been told that he was a Nazi-sympathiser by someone I know, who I doubt is an expert, and probably equated his anti-semitism (if it existed, which I think it did, but this was not uncommon for men of his time) with Nazism. I do not wish to slander the man, I like his writings, I simply picked this up and thought that it was worth mentioning in his article if it is true. As I said I dont have a source for it yet and its perfectly understandable you dont want to take my word for it. If I cant find a source, you will, and I will, just have to assume I got this rumour from an erroneous source.172.213.64.230 (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * His life in France has been quite well documented - it's the only interesting part of his life from a biographer's point of view - with no serious allegations of Nazi sympathy or anti-Semitism. So when you write "the fact that Wodehouse was a Nazi-sympathiser has been ommited from the article" (not "I once heard that ..." or "it seems to me that ..." but "the fact that ...") you can hardly be surprised if you get un-sympathetic responses. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just semantics, Im not really good at phrasing thing in a way that does me any favours, what I meant was 'If it was a fact that he was an anti-semite, this should not be excluded form the article), and in the last few minuets Ive been doing some reasearch and now say Ive got to amke an apology to the guy. TBH I didnt really know enough about his life in the first place to start commenting on what I thought was the case, but I now see I got the idea that he was a 'Nazi-sympathiser' and 'antisemite' simply from the fact that I had heard he was involved in making anti-semitic propaganada for the Nazis, but researching this further I found that 1. He did this against his will being held captive 2. He couldnt of been a notable Nazi-sympathiser or he wouldnt have been imprisoned for a year. Ill remebr to do more research before I comment, I think I must have got this guy either confused with another of those British Nazi-propogadarists, or simply drawn conclusions without having all the evidence, sorry for wasting your time (can delete the section if you want, since its kind of a slander).172.213.64.230 (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicely answered - I'm sorry if I sounded too pompous in my first response to you. (If only all wikipedia discussions went this well!) Merry Christmas! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, here's some original research for you, just for the talk page (and yes it is relevant to what should be in the article and what should not be) on the subject of PGW and antisemitism, as far as his writing goes. The worst one can say about him is not even bad: he uses occasional humorous depictions of jewish junk-shop owners and bookies ("Joe the Lawyer" may or may not have been Jewish), which are of the same type as his benign use of, for example, Irish stereotypes and working-class and Cockney speech patterns. Other than that little nothing, there is no anti-semitism in PGW's writing.  In particular, he shuns popular ways of expressing anti-semitism in code, which were, to write parables about debt and forgiveness, invoking the we-accept-JC-but-the-Jews-didn't thing, the Shylock manouver.  Or, to make stories about bitter outsiders wishing they were insiders, as Wagner did.  Or, to couch anti-semitism in philisophical dialoge between characters, as Chesterton did.  Wodehouse never did any of that.  He never invoked any form, no matter how remote, of blood-libel, either.  The nearest he gets to a christian message at all is having Bertie Wooster sacrifice himself, (apparently) betrayed, in order to redeem the messes in his world, culminating in RIGHT HO, JEEVES.  (How many Passion-analogues can you name where the christ-figure is the first-person narrator?)


 * PGW was one of the least hateful of all writers. Bertie Wooster forgives everyone, even, at the end of one of the later short novels (Jeeves and the Tie that Binds, I think although it could be one of the others--the one with the amber statuette), Sir Watkyn Basset, offering him a drink after scoring a victory, and musing "Probably a very nice chap, if you got to know him".


 * PGW had lots of rich, stingy, miserly characters, and, cheating unscrupulous lying exploitative characters, and few or none of them were particularly jewish or code-jewish: Steggles, Oofy Prosser, Alaric Duke of Dunstable, Lord Brangbolton, "Pop" Stoker, Captain Jack Fosdyke, Sir Watkyn Basset. MAYBE Joe the Lawyer was Jewish; MAYBE Jass Waterbury was Jewish, no hint but the foreign-sounding name.


 * Overall, he seemed to ignore the philosophical and political issues about Judaism altogether.


 * So I think even including a section on anti-semitism is a libel. An opportunistic exaggeration of his error in judgement, trying to make light humor of his experience as a POW, (that WAS his profession, after all, light humor) for which he apologised.

SingingZombie (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An anti-semite would hardly have agreed to work on Broadway and in Hollywood, where the managements were overwhelmingly Jewish. Valetude (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

chronology

 * The very first (chronologically) Jeeves story ("Jeeves Takes Charge")

That's no clarification: is it first by external or internal chronology? That is, was it the first published, or is it set earlier in Jeeves's life than his other stories?

Is there a difference? Wodehouse wrote more than once that he was embarrassed at having mentioned that Emsworth was at school in 186x, because that made him implausibly old in later stories; so I reckon we ought to assume that the stories are set in the time of their writing. —Tamfang (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whether it was the first written, and for that matter there may be "flashback" stories about before he was employed by Bertie, I don't remember. What I mean is, "Jeeves Takes Charge" describes the first time Bertie meets Jeeves ("The door opened.  A dark, respectful sort of Johnnie stood without."), the first time he tastes Jeeves' special pick-me-up potion, the first description of Jeeves wafting into a room rather than clumping, the first establishment of the letting-Jeeves-choose-the-wardrobe-in-return-for-getting-Bertie-out-of-scrapes pattern. SingingZombie (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So let's say "Jeeves Takes Charge", in which Bertie first meets Jeeves, or some such. —Tamfang (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently there was an earlier story, in which Jeeves only speaks two lines. Even then, I think Jeeves was his new name for a character already developed earlier, as Wooster certainly was (Reggie someone), so there may be more than one way of dating the birth of the canon. And do we know if there were any stories of Wooster before there was any Jeeves or equivalent? Valetude (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Literary Tastes and Influences
Am I alone in being surprised that the Bible is not cited as an influence? I have just picked up "The Mating Season" after years of not reading Wodehouse, and am struck by the number of Biblical allusions. Stratopastor (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Humble
I wouldn't exactly call Jeeves humble, but I hesitate to change that. zadcat 09:56 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)


 * Jeeves is definitely not humble. He's smugly superior, but in an underhand way that Wooster never notices. -- Tarquin 10:03 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)


 * Point taken. I deleted "humble".  Perhaps one adjective is enough.  -- Heron

Book reference 2
I've changed the format of Template:Book reference 2 so that instead of 'ISBN=nnnnnnnnn' it takes 'id=ISBN nnnnnnnnnn'. This is so that we can use it for books that don't have ISBNs. I'd update this article, but User:Rdsmith4 has an inuse message set, so this is a reminder for me or someone else to make that change once the article's no longer marked as inuse. &mdash;Morven 22:22, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've made the change. &mdash; Dan | Talk 22:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Drones Club Article
It seems to me that there is a Drones Club article. -- Two Halves, unlogged and unstoppable
 * So there is. Pardon my confusion, but what's the purpose of your comment?  &mdash; Dan | Talk 03:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There was no active link in the article, and I didn't want to mess up all the work you were doing and/or be instantly reverted. So, now you know. -- Two Halves

Golf
Surely "A Damsel in Distress" is also golf-oriented?

Doctorate
Is it worth mentioning his honorary doctorate? It was clearly important to PGW, and many (including Waugh) write letters to him as Dr Wodehouse. -- wikiman 9th April, 2006

Childhood
"Feeling abandoned, Wodehouse grew very close to his brother, who shared his love for art. Wodehouse filled the voids in his life by writing relentlessly."

I'm fairly sure that he never said anything of the kind. He very rarely broke from the cheery tone of his books in any of his writings or interviews that I've read (for an exception, see his see the statements he gave upon his arrest in Paris after the War). Of course, he may have been wearing the mask, but I think we have to at least consider the possibility that he was a fairly happy person, as unfashionable as that undoubtedly is. Perhaps "Some biographers (Robert McCrum, others as well?) have speculated that Wodehouse suffered from feelings of abandonment."

The Paint and the Shoe
I am just about to add a trivia pointing out that he used the "paint and shoe scene" in two different books - "Mike" and the Blandings book "Something New". How often did he lift scenes from other books? It seems to me that he got to that point in the plot and said "oh drat, I've got a paint splashed shoe again!", and decided to play to the reader's groans by lifting the scene almost word-for-word.

Engagements as plot devices
The article gives SOMETHING FRESH as an example of the plot device where a man must find a way to get out of an undesirable engagement. A much more widely-read example is RIGHT-HO JEEVES and subsequent novels.

'Tricked' into broadcasting from Germany
As this discussion is now in a sealed archive, let me add one point here. If Wodehouse had been tricked into making the broadcasts, he would obviously have seized on this fact as a prime excuse. Yet nowhere in his own writings does he mention trickery. He made the broadcasts of his own free will, to still-neutral America, as a deal to secure early release from internment. He did not realize that this kind of deal with the Nazis might be viewed as unpatriotic. He did not realize that comic material with no propaganda message could still be classified as 'humanizing the enemy', a serious offence in wartime. He also did not realize that the talks might be re-broadcast to the UK (even to a minuscule audience), which was the more serious issue, taken up by the government. Valetude (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but factually incorrect. There is no suggestion of any such deal as suggested above.  Tim riley  talk   17:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "as a deal to secure early release": categorically wrong, as the article makes very clear. 60 was the standard age at which all non-combattants were released; Wodehouse was released two months prior to that. Furthermore, he did not commit any offence in UK law, serious or not. The odious little prig Hailsham desparately searched for a reason to prosecute PGW, but later admitted in the HoC that Wodehouse had broken no laws at all. As this has all been covered on the talk page before in an open (not "sealed") archive, I'm not sure why you think the point worth raising again - your comment is more polemical than anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Importance of "Jeeves"
In my view something is missing from the "Reputation" section of this article. The Jeeves character is so well known that the name has become synonymous with butlers, even for people who know nothing about Jeeves and Wooster. That's quite a legacy that Wodehouse left behind, so it should be stated it his article. The Jeeves article covers this and I definitely think something similar should be added here: "Both the name "Jeeves" and the character of Jeeves have come to be thought of as the quintessential name and nature of a valet or butler, inspiring many similar characters (as well as the name of the Internet search engine Ask Jeeves). A "Jeeves" is now a generic term in references such as the Oxford English Dictionary.[2]"

While I'm here, something confused me while reading the "Wooster and Jeeves" part of the article. After mentioning that Wodehouse wrote the first book with the characters, it then goes to to talk about "The Blandings Castle stories" for a few lines before then giving a description of Jeeves & Wooster. I'm no expert, so are these Blanding stories related to J&W or separate? If they are separate (which they appear to be), why does the description come here, and interrupt the J&W stuff? --92.19.30.118 (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Re point 1. This article is about Wodehouse, not about Jeeves, so the omission is correct. Point 2: the stories are about the same fictional world (there is overlap with the Drones Club and some of the characters), and the J&W info isn't interrupted by anything: both are mentioned, the. Dealt with in more detail. – SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I had an "edit conflict" but had just written this: Why on earth does someone keep changing my link to the characters names, in *the section dedicated to them*? It's quite obvious they need to be linked here: many people will go to that section and then want to be able to click away to the characters. That's exactly what happened with me and it was irritating. Yes they are "linked above" in the introduction but it's normal to also link in the main part of the article where that topic is discussed. I've been reading (and sometimes editing) wikipedia long enough to know what. Now I'll also address the reply to me here. I know that the article is about Wodehouse but doesn't wikipedia usually mention a subject's significant legacy? The Jeeves point is significant; not many people can claim to create something that enters common language. I suspect Wodehouse would be proud of it. About the ordering of the paragraph: okay I read it again and see that the Blandings stories are mentioned before. Swapping back and forth like this is confusing though, I see no reason why it can't be 1) mention of Blandings 2) description of Blandings 3) mention of J&W 4) description of J&W. Like I said, I came here specifically to see the section about J&W and would have preferred the text to flow in this way. Many other readers will probably feel similarly. --92.19.30.118 (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has rules, one of which is that there should be only one link from the text of any article to any other article. I hear (or rather read) what you say, but we can't rewrite the rule book ad lib.  Tim riley  talk   17:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, that makes little sense. I see that "Guildford" and "Dulwich College" for example are linked in the intro then again in the Early Life section. Why can they be linked twice but not the most famous characters that Wodehouse created (which 90% of readers will be coming to the article for)? --92.19.30.118 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead and the main text are permitted one link apiece to any article. We are not permitted two or more links from the text to any other article. It's all there in the Manual of Style if you care to read it.  Tim riley  talk   17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

But where else in the article are the characters linked? This is the first time they are mentioned after the intro. I would be interested in a link to this Manuel of Style rule actually, to see if it is as stringent as "only two links per article". I'm sure I've seen more before. Besides, it's obvious that a link should come in its relevant section, even if it has been linked to previously. Doesn't wikipedia just want to keep things as easy as possible? This is such a small but beneficial change I want to make, I'm surprised it needs to be debated. How about my two other points here, do you or any other readers of the talk page agree with them? I'm tempted to change the ordering of the paragraph myself as it seems like an obvious improvement. It certainly wouldn't hurt anything. 92.19.30.118 (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The rule is perfectly clear, and you can see it if you trouble to check the MoS: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead". Difficult to misunderstand. Bertie Wooster is linked from the main text in the "Early years" section and Jeeves from "Psmith, Blandings, Wooster and Jeeves: 1908–15". I really think you might have read the article before raising the question. As to the order of the text, you are perhaps unaware of the process by which an article achieves promotion to Featured Article. This one was scrutinised by nine experienced reviewers/editors at that stage, after an earlier peer review in which eight colleagues joined. You can see them here and here: please note how detailed the comments were. You are of course entitled to your view as an anonymous editor, but pray reflect on the likelihood of its outweighing those of the experienced contributors who have reviewed the article minutely. –  Tim riley  talk   18:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A simple text search also provides the answer to the question of where the link is. I have to agree that the section doesn't need rewriting, as it is perfectly clear as it stands. – SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I see that actually my link to Jeeves in the relevant section has been kept, because I was right that previously it was only linked in the intro. So let's just link Bertie as well. The rule you quote begins with "Generally.." The very presence of that word allows for some exceptions, and this is the perfect occasion for that. Tim Riley, you said you understood my point so how about throwing caution to the wind and just making the name clickable? It *will not hurt the article*, we're not suddenly going to be faced with millions of blue links, it will just make things that little bit easier for readers. As for those reviews, that shows me that you (who evidently wrote the article) appreciate input from other users and were willing to make requested changes. Why should that stop? Input is always good, no? If I'd made my comments there, would you have taken them on board? Apparently not because "my view is unlikely to outweigh those of experiences editors". Hmm. I would have thought the view of a casual reader like myself is pretty valuable, since that's what most people coming to the page are. I'm telling you that the lack of clickable names was irritating, and that I was confused by the mention of the Blandings Stories in between the Jeeves talk. Please take that into account and improve the article for casual readers (I'm not saying the article is bad, by any means - it's clearly very high quality - but these are two small improvements that could be made). We've also somehow managed to avoid my original point, about the legacy Wodehouse left behind with Jeeves. I only suggest a brief mention. It would easily fit in the paragraph that talks about the screen adaptations and the dictionary words from Wodehouse. These are similar legacies. --92.19.30.118 (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment about the addition of information about Jeeves has been commentedon: it is not needed here, but is suited to the Jeeves article, not this one. Ditto the Wooster link: it's not needed here as it has appeared not too far above. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, apart as we unhappily are, if English is your first language, anonymous editor, but if it is, I am surprised that you can contrive to read the words of the MoS as an invitation to add more than one link to the body of the text. It specifies generally a single link, but allows one other in the text (plus captions etc) after the lead. Very clear, meseems. –  Tim riley  talk   15:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop patronising me now, I've been pretty calm but it's getting annoying. The sentence begins "Generally". That allows for exceptions. I found the "Manual of Style" and indeed, right at the top it says "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." EXCEPTIONS! Why be such a blind follower of the "rules", even when you're told you don't have to? Let's use common sense. Common sense says that the section with a heading for a particular subject should have a link to that subject. Very very obvious. To go back to my point about Jeeves: the article mentions that many of Wodehouse's terms are included in the Oxford dictionary. This is very similar to my point that his character is now well known to the masses. The two achievements/enduring legacies are very similar. And quite simply, I just can't see a reason for *not* including it. It can't be claimed that it's irrelevant to Wodehouse's article, or at least it is no less relevant than words he created becoming widely used. They are both things he invented, both things that have grown beyond their original use in his books. Either both points are relevant or neither is (and I say they definitely both are). 92.19.30.118 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Interpretations of exceptions to rules is determined by consensus. You are clearly arguing against consensus, and that means the exception will not be applied in this case.  The horse has died.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * IP, no one is patronising you, so please calm down. Trying to force your version in—despite a third editor pointing out you are arguing against consensus—is not a smart move. - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)