Talk:W. B. Yeats/Archive 2

Yeats' vs. Yeats's
I feel like this has been discussed, but I can't find where. A recent edit changed two instances of Yeats's to Yeats'. One of the cases is within a citation for an article that uses Yeats's, so I changed that one back. In general, however, has consensus been reached on the appropriate possessive for Yeats? It seems that much of the scholarly literature uses Yeats's (e.g.,, , ), and I'm inclined to agree. Avram (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inlcinded towards Yeats', Yeats's looks odd to my eyes. Is this a Brit Eng thing? Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
What happened to the infobox at the beginning of the article. If nobody has any problems I'm going to place one in the article.Exiledone 19:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've placed the infobox. I'd appreciate if any users could correct any errors in it(Influences, Influenced, Movements ect). Exiledone 19:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Exiledone, infoboxes are not mandatory, and the majority of editors working on the page are against including one here. There is a discussion on the issue in the current FAR. Ceoil 19:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't seen this discussion and added another infobox. Although I disagree like crazy, at least people had the opportunity to discuss it. -Midnightdreary 02:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another Infobox attempt. I added an XML comment to the source to the effect that the editors do not want one (although I'm agnostic about it). 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndburger (talk • contribs)
 * What little discussion there was on the matter took place several months ago. I think it is time we revisit the issue.  What good reason is there for this article not to have an author box? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What good reason is there for the article to have one? Paul August &#9742; 05:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead and the infobox give a preview of the article, besides if 80% of articles about important authors have an infobox, for the sake of homogeneity, Yeats should have one as well. Yamanbaiia 08:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox looks ugly, and adds precicely nothing.Ceoil 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead is there to give a preview of the article. Ceoil 09:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Movement", "influences", "influenced", "place of birth", "period", "place of birth", etc. are not mentioned in the lead. Ugly? that's not an argument, the fact is infoboxes are usefull, specially when you just need to know the basics of the subject and don't have the time/want to navigate throughout the whole article. -Yamanbaiia 10:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing saying that infoboxes are mandatory on articles. It's more important that the information you listed is in the article itself rather than there be an infobox at the top of the page. Consensus during the article's Featured Article Review favored removing it. WesleyDodds 11:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And, as I said above, the FAR and the conversation related thereto, took place more than 6 months ago. It is time for a new conversation which will involve other editors.  And, quite frankly, I would like to see where it is spellt out, in no uncertain terms, that the majority of editors were not in favour of an infobox. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to adding the box. Ceoil 16:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to be a little more forthcoming as to your reasons? Simply saying you "strongly object" really does not tell us much. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox distorted and simplified, its repitiitous, and ugly. Ceoil 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is something wrong with the box itself, i.e., I formatted it incorrectly, etc., that can be corrected. That is not an argument for its deletion.  And it is not, to a large degree, repetitious.  Much of the information, like who influenced him and who he influenced, can only be found much later in the article.  As Yamanbaiia stated quite correctly above, an infobox is useful for presenting, in a relatively simple form, information for which one would otherwise have to search the entire article.  This is precisely why they are used. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel as strongly as some others appear to, but I find, for certain topic areas, infoboxes are a little too "USA Today"—they're somewhat inelegant, often simplistic, and do not encourage readers to delve into a subject. I see that Britannica does not use them—not a sufficient argument, but indicative, I think.  Finally, I note that this became a featured article without an infobox. —johndburger 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a question of esthetics, but a question of usefulness. Honestly after so much time using Wikipedia i don't see the infobox as ugly or not, just as something that's there, like the content box under the lead section. And it's not wikipedia's job to encourage readers to delve into a subject, but to be helpfull and consistent, even for the people that doesn't care about Yeats and justs needs to know to which movement he belonged to and who did he influenced. Britannica might not use them, but Wikipedia definetely does, i'd say 80% of FAs about people have infoboxes. -Yamanbaiia 08:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography encourages the use of infoboxes. From reading this section, it seems the consensus is to have it, as only one editor objected while several wanted it or were "agnostic" about it. I've restored it. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yworo, I don't know how much you know about these artists and writers, but having infoboxes for them is extremely difficult. I'm absolutely in favor of not having an infobox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a poet like Yeats is far too complex and involved for a device as reductive as an infobox. I think it simplistic and misleads. This has been the general concencus for some time now, with no convincing argument against, except, it gives readers who cannot be bothered scan the lead a 2 second jump on the who, what and why. Ug. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Disinfoboxes applies perfectly to most of the modernist articles. Too much complexity to jam into a box. Agree - ug. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear to those editors restoring the infobox: this article has never had an infobox. Yworo should discuss and achieve consensus before making such a change to an FA. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair, it did for a short spell, and was one of the main bones of contention during its FAR. The rest of the thing on the top right is a joke. The absolute height of presumably unintended humor is: "Occupation: Poet"  Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops - didn't go back as far as May 2007. So, just to be clear, the article hasn't had an infobox for over three years until today? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no consensus for including an infobox in this discussion. The adding of an infobox is a decidedly pointy edit.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against the infobox...Modernist (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Citing such a broad project as WikiProject Biography as having authority over as narrow a field as poetry is seeking a very dangerous precedent. Not butterflies. Ceoil (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we say, again....
 "A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information; not all information can be so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time- line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box trumps all discourse." 
 * In my opinion - the infobox not needed here, it is optional...Modernist (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not needed here, or anywhere else. Infoboxes are neither required nor desired.  The cat is disruptive and should be submitted to CFD, as well.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Anything interesting going on? No? OK. WP:SNOW close the mandatory infoboxes thingie. bad idea. • Ling.Nut 23:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DISINFOBOX I strongly recommend against the infobox on this page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a modernist-infobox warrior here (wow); but its spilling across to other pages. Not a very spohisticated modernist-infobox warrior mind, but a modernist-infobox yawn nonetheless. Dont freak, but be viligant. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local editors should decide. The Biography project is a secondary one. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think that if infoboxes are encouraged by the biographies team, they should change the guideline. As WP:DISINFOBOX says

This reflects my experience of info boxes - they're easy but not really very helpful or often accurate. Not quite sure what they're for. The "influences" section doesn't work at all. But let's keep the discussion civil. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll re inclusion of Infobox
The lame excuse of a long-expired prior consensus has been used to repeatedly remove an Infobox from this article. The use of infoboxes is encouraged by the WikiProject Biography. The last discussion on this talk page showed a consensus for the inclusion of an Infobox which has been repeatedly overridden by editors citing "prior consensus" which is not a valid argument. So let's gauge current consensus. Who supports or opposes inclusion of an Infobox? Yworo (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Nice attempt to distract from the 3 year old discussion above with a poll about five screens down. Try harder if you want to fool, and please, again, refer to above arguments. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll responses (only)

 * Support - Infoboxes are useful and are encouraged on all biographies. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support–Infoboxes are important and have been encouraged on all biographies. To follow the rules does not require consensus. (Salmon1 (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC))
 * But it's not a rule.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a rule to be adopted by a new consensus of editors. Yworo (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why we are seeking consensus. I was responding to Salmon1's statement that a rule does not require consensus. But you knew exactly what I was talking about.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Well, Yworo is the one who originally cited prior consensus. However, there does not appear to have been consensus for having an infobox, despite his instance of this. The current consensus also appears to favour no infobox. In short, both the previous consensus and the current consensus appear to be for no infobox. Likewise, there had been no infobox in this article. It was briefly added, then removed until Yworo decided to add one. There has been no repeated reverting of the infobox: to be blunt, this is disingenuous on Yworo's part. The article never had one. One editor added it; it was removed. Yworo added it today and has then played the game that "other editors" are repeatedly removing the infobox. Consensus is clear against the infobox, and as I stated above, I am neutral on the idea of infoboxes in general, but in this case, the consensus is unamiguous.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How could you possibly know what the current consensus is? Are you psychic? Yworo (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I call troll on that, if thats the best you can do. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I call boooooring on that, if that's the best you can do. Yworo (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I am psychic. I knew that you wouldn't be able to control yourself and would just have to respond to my comment. The fact that your response is of no help to the overall project is another matter altogether....  freshacconci  talk talk  12:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Children, children.... let's keep it constructive, please. Spanglej (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, look at all the snow. It's like an early Christmas...for Infobox haters. My bad, I didn't realize how much some editors disliked them for certain articles. Please forgive the disruption and return to your regularly scheduled programming. Yworo (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Chronology
This article needs a much clearer chronology in light of the way the Yeats family moved around in his childhood. It says that he thought of Sligo as the country of his childhood, yet his parents moved to London when he was 2. Just a table listing where he lived when would solved the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"There is another world, but it is in this one."
This line is quoted all over the internet, and equally attributed to Yeats and Paul Eluard. Can someone please identify the specific source, if they know it? I really do not want to mis-attribute this interesting quote.

Jayintheusa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.164.51 (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * . Ceoil (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, for me, the link goes to a blank page ... Hopefully it works for the ip. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ceoil!

Certainly if an author, like Llewelyn, writing about Eluard, cannot find the source of the quote among Eluard's works, then the needle of probability moves towards Yeats. But, of course, it would be very comforting, and a service to the innumerable people who cite this phrase, to see if it can actually be sourced anywhere in the Yeats bibliography!

Jayintheusa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayintheusa (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

opening
I feel the end of the opening is POV and removed it. The word around the quote especially so.

I don't mind the quote going back in, but one POV does not belong in the opening. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

September 1913
I have a lot of problems with this paragraph:

In his early work, Yeats' aristocratic pose led to an idealisation of the Irish peasant and a willingness to ignore poverty and suffering. Later the emergence of a revolutionary movement from the ranks of the urban, mostly Roman Catholic lower-middle class made him reassess his attitudes. His re-engagement with politics can be seen in the poem September 1913, with its well-known refrain "Romantic Ireland's dead and gone / It's with O'Leary in the grave." The poem is an attack on the Dublin employers who were involved in the 1913 Dublin Lockout. In the refrain of "Easter 1916" ("All changed, changed utterly / A terrible beauty is born"), Yeats faces his own failure to recognise the merits of the leaders of the Easter Rising, due to his attitude towards their humble backgrounds and lives. (Foster (2003), 59–66)

Don't know where to start. Was September 1913 really a poem defending the workers in the 1913 lockout. I really think this needs to be backed up with a lot of cites. In my mind its more about how Yeats was ticked off there was no funding for the museum, in fact, almost all evidence points to this. This period should be dealt with, but I think the above says a lot of stuff that it shouldn't...I am removing it.

The last sentence I'll leave as I think it is correct enough. The sentences before really need some serious citations. There are a lot more cites pointing the exact opposite way. I could cite plenty of Yeats's own poetry from before and after this time to back my idea up, letters, commentary etc. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think its a fair enough summary of how his thoughts developed, and lets not forget he was always remote, more interested in idealisation than grit. That said, I would be interested to engage on this. My view point was taken from some, admitally bitter writers from the early 30s, when Yeats ruled the cultural landscape of Ireland with a wintery fist. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict x 10) I have Foster's book & will have a look - but cited material shouldn't be removed from a featured article without discussion.  Might be better simply to add that it's Foster's view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence that is cited is the one that I did not remove.
 * Putting views of either side of the idea is fine, as long as both sides go in. I just think as is it is confusing.  There's two issues: what were his views on aristocracy/middle-class versus working class, and what were his views regarding 1913?  Then this paragraph tries to tie 1913 and 1916 together, which I'm not sure is correct.  His sympathy for working class and lower middle class people and that national revolution in 1916 is clear, in 1913 it is less so. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Did his thought develop though? Where was it developing from?  Obviously the kind of thought he expressed in poems such as "Upon A House Shaken By The Land Agitation", where he has a lot more sympathy for the "eagle" landlord than the agitating tenants.  OK, but where was he evolving too?  Obviously he approved of the national revolution, but as later paragraphs show, often in a Eoin O'Duffy, Fine Gael kind of way.  I think his poem Parnell says a lot - "Parnell came down the road, he said to a cheering man: 'Ireland shall get her freedom and you still break stone.'"  While he may have had a broad view, this is how he saw things.  Yes, he did have a kind of patronizing view of the working class at times, but from "Upon A House Shaken By The Land Agitation" to his death, he was always alarmed by working class people asserting their rights, outside of national revolution.
 * Onto another point, I'm even more firmly sure that there is little to read in September 1913 as a poem about the Lockout. A lot of evidence shows it was probably mostly written before the lockout.  I believe the original poem title mentioned the lack of funding for the museum.  He may have meant shades of sympathy for the locked out, but is certainly not an impassioned plea motivated by the lockout on behalf of the locked out workers.  All evidence from scholarship points against that.
 * I will look back on this page either in a few hours, or possibly not until tomorrow. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We're kind of on the same page here Adelson; I think that as much as we need to track the progeress of his thought, we need to reflect how sources intrepretated and wrote about him since his death. Knives were out in the 40s/50s, from the mid 1960s there was a sanctification up to the mid 90s. Foster's bio is very detatched critically and generationally, and widened the door to a more jaundice view of the man. Any sources you have on this, please share - input is very much welcome. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Foster suggests the poem was written as early as July in reaction against the failure of the art gallery. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So, there seems to be a consensus of sorts that more of what was there should go back. There were five sentences in the original paragraph, I had taken four out, I just put another one back, slightly modified. I removed the word urban as there was a significant rural element in the Irish national revolution, even in the Easter 1916 rising. I also added working class to lower middle class, as James Connolly and the Citizen army played an important part, as De Valera himself said - If I recall correctly Dev said Connolly was more adamant that they should go ahead with the Rising than anyone.

Of the three sentences remaining that were taken out - the first one is OK except for the word "pose" as I feel it was more than a pose. Also, the talk of reassessment in the sentence after makes it look like he changed his mind about this, which I don't feel he did (but all views on this can be expressed).

The sentence with the September 1913 quote is OK, although it should probably go earlier, it doesn't have much context as re-done, and I'm wary of saying it re-engages him with politics. Perhaps if it was put differently it would be good.

The sentence "The poem is an attack on the Dublin employers who were involved in the 1913 Dublin Lockout." is the most problematic, as I don't see it that way. It is fine to put it in as a view, but I would add a contrary view, and qualify the assertion.

So I guess of the three removed, one is about Yeats's reassessment of politics, and two are about 1913 and the poem September 1913. I'm happy to hear input and have consensus about how this can be put back in.

I just feel that as the paragraph existed, it could be really confusing. I have done some reading about Yeats in these years and this paragraph just seemed to need to be re-written, because somewhat unfamiliar with Yeats in this period could get an odd, and in my opinion incorrect view of him and his thought at this time. I feel "To a Wealthy Man..." and "On Those That Hated 'The Playboy of the Western World,' 1907" are just as significant for this time period, and are in fact all pretty much of the same theme as September 1913. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

puzzling link - yeats poem or not?
Hi all, I've come across this (from )

--- a song of the rosy-cross

He who measures gain and loss, When he gave to thee the Rose, Gave to me alone the Cross Where the blood-red blossom blows In a wood of dew and moss, There thy wandering pathway goes, Mine where waters brood and toss; Yet one joy have I hid close, He who measures gain and loss, When he gave to thee the Rose, Gave to me alone the Cross.

W.B.Yeats On "Now And In Time To Be" and "Spellbound - The Best Of Sharon Shannon" ---

I can only find 1 or 2 hits on the entire web for this, which is odd if it is indeed a yeats poem. The "now and in time to be" can be found on amazon and elsewhere as "Now and in Time to Be: a Musical Celebration of the Works of W.B.Yeats"86.151.121.179 (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC) So, izzit yeats or not? Can anyone illuminate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.121.179 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought someone might have answered the question but as no-one has I might suppose it's more difficult than I'd expected. Surely, though, someone can shed light on this? I grow more curious.
 * Thanks 81.157.24.158 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So, after nearly 3 years no-one can say anything about it? Finally links have appeared on the web which suggest it's a yeat's poem but really, was my question so dense or so hard that none could assist authoritatively? I'm actually very puzzled. There must be a ton of experts here. 92.24.207.169 (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Augustus John - Yeats.jpg
The image File:Augustus John - Yeats.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move per request as the more common name. Regarding the spacing, I'm following the very consistent trend for similar subjects evident here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

William Butler Yeats → W. B. Yeats – This man is primarily known as 'W. B. Yeats'. This is how his works have been published, a deliberate decision by himself. see also "WB Yeats Society" E-Kartoffel (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The Google counts disprove that. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Out of interest, what google search were you using Softlavender? My search of gbooks (which is preferable to a general google search because most hits from a normal google search will be unreliable sources) showed 173,000 hits for "William Butler Yeats" compared to 234,000 for "W. B. Yeats", which shows that W. B. Yeats is indeed the most common name. Jenks24 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I must have reversed the two in my mind while I was searching. However, GoogleNews does give the full name a higher count. And as an English major at a top five U.S. university, we always used the full name, and this was the case in high school in the 1970s. I have a feeling conventions may have changed to more in line with his publishing, however I still prefer the way I was taught. (The same goes for George Bernard Shaw.) Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Always known as W.B.Yeats and that's what's on his headstone. Bjmullan (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. We have D. H. Lawrence, H. G. Wells, J. B. Priestley ....  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. He published as W. B. Yeats, google books supports this variation, critical writing on Yeats favours W. B. and as pointed out above, his headstone reads W. B. Yeats. That would be the common name.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per supporters. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - per the headstone test. But I wouldn't space the W.B. Ceoil  13:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nationality again
Should the lede refer to Yeats as Irish or Anglo-Irish? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be more specific and appropriate to say W B was Anglo-Irish, a la Ernest Shackleton, Francis Bacon, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, et al? He was a member of the Ascendancy that self-identified as Anglo-Irish ("I am proud to consider myself a typical man of that minority", etc), so it seems only sensible. Thoughts? JonChapple Talk 22:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * MOS:BIO states that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." While he evidently was Anglo-Irish, I don't see how that's relevant to his notability. An example of an article where ethnicity is appropriate to the lede is Rosa Parks who " was an African-American civil rights activist, whom the U.S. Congress called "the first lady of civil rights", and "the mother of the freedom movement", as she is notable for defying segregation of African-Americans from whites. Yeats, however, is known for his contributions to literature, not for something related to his ancestry. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In cases where nationality in in doubt or a complex issue, self-identification is the way to go. Was Yeats merely an Irishman or a Briton too? That he's from Ireland isn't in any doubt, and the article reflects, but he was also undoubtedly a British citizen, so if we do away with Anglo-Irish should this be included in the lead too? I think Anglo-Irish covers it succinctly, just as it does on the articles listed above. JonC Talk 14:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But Anglo-Irish isn't a nationality, it's an ethnicity. He self-identified as Anglo-Irish, yes, but that doesn't change that it's an ethnicity and thus doesn't belong in the lead, as it is not relevant to his notability. As Ireland was at the time of his birth part of the UK, he was initially both an Irishman and a Briton, and later simply Irish. However, it is very common to refer to people from the UK by the nationality of their constituent country E.g., "Sir Thomas Sean Connery (born 25 August 1930), better known as Sean Connery, is a Scottish actor and producer" or "Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE (born 18 June 1942) is an English musician" 89.100.150.198 (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, W._B._Yeats makes it sound very strongly that he self identified as Irish. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * of course, and you are correct, but as in many other instances, that is insufficent for some editors here, Anglo-Irish is a best a compromise Lugnad (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Irish. I know it has already been said, but I possibly still needs stressing this is about whether to use his nationality or his ethnicity in the lead. "Anglo-Irish" refers to an ethnic group. It isn't a question of mixed parentage or dual citizenship. In terms of WP practice, WP:OPENPARA tells us that "Ethnicity ... should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". So, Amy Winehouse is described as English (rather than Jewish), Omar Sharif is Egyptian (rather than Arab), Martin Scorsese is American (rather than Italian-American), Yeats is Irish (rather than Anglo-Irish). --FormerIP (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but this isn't as cut and dry. Ireland wasn't a sovereign state for the majority of Yeats's life – his nationality was equally – if not more so, as Ireland was only a constituent part of the UK – British. He was a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. As an aside, his nationality is already "Irish" in the infobox. JonC Talk 18:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, people from the UK aren't universally called British, there are many cases where they are referred to as being from their particular constituent country. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a separate issue, but it's also already covered here. So, we don't describe anyone on WP (AFAIK) as "a subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (BTW, we couldn't have British, becuase Ireland was only ever part of the UK, not Britain). Oscar Wilde is Irish, George Bernard Shaw is Irish and so on. --FormerIP (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oscar Wilde and G B Shaw weren't members of the Protestant Ascendancy that strongly identified with that particular class. "British" doesn't just relate to the island of Great Britain (there is no island of "Britain") – it's the denonym to describe any citizen of the United Kingdom. No such word as UK-ish. JonC Talk 19:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why Yeats is Irish. Try finding an RS that refers to him as "British". --FormerIP (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ...? The United Kingdom before 1922 included the whole of Ireland. He was a British citizen. British means the UK. JonC Talk 20:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (not that I'm suggesting we put this in the lead...) JonC Talk 20:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, which I would say makes it not relevant anyway. The case is almost exactly parallel to Oscar Wilde, who was also Anglo-Irish and born only a decade earlier. --FormerIP (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * consider Charles Stewart Parnell "descended from an English merchant family" "connected with the aristocracy through the Powerscourts and distantly connected to the Royal Family", here on wikipedia he is Irish Lugnad (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish ye nationalist worrying people would take yer arguments else where, this is an article about a poet, not an englishman or Irishman, I only reverted Jonchapple in the first place because he goes from article to article worry about these things and makeing them an issue and Im not interested but utterly sick of it. He turned up on my watchlist on Francis Bacon (artist), same thing again, which is trivial navel gaving compared to discussion of the work. Ye guys should have a meta argument in a trench where ye can pull each other apart out of view of editors concerned with discussion subject's work outside of current views of thier nationality, and the perennial circular bullshit ye seems so obsessed with is par for the course. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted undiscussed changes by the same IP to the Francis Bacon article. Now we're discussing what should be done with this one. You're more than welcome to not participate if it bores you so. Feel free to make some edits about the man's poetry. JonC Talk 05:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved his Anglo-Irishness into the first para and stuck his citizenship of the UK of GB and I into the appropriate field in the infobox. See what you think. JonC Talk 05:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. This page has been without an infobox for a long time and as soon as I have a moment I'll go through the history to see when it was added, but would prefer not to see an infobox and prefer not to see Anglo-Irish, which to me means nothing and makes me scratch my head. We need to think of the lay readers from all over the world, not a small slice of readers who might understand the nuances being put forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why have you got rid of the whole infobox? JonC Talk 11:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per consensus above . The infobox was added with this edit, without an edit summary, and just slid past the page watchers. Also, just to explain re the terminology, where I live "Anglo" means white as in Caucasian, so in my view it's just really best to simplify this and leave it as Irish. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I won't object. However, with respect, what Anglo- means where you live isn't really of any relevance to this article – Anglo-Irish is a widely-used term to denote members of the former Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland. Yeats is Anglo-Irish, but per objections above, I've moved it to the first para. JonC Talk 17:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Irish - Although, due to his ancestry, he may be legitimately characterized as Anglo-Irish that sort of subtlety would be misleading in the first sentence of the lead.  His status as  Anglo-Irish  is already discussed later in the body of the article, and it is appropriate there.  It is true that  Ernest Shackleton is described as Anglo-Irish in his lead sentence, but there is a large distinction:  Shackleton moved from Ireland to England at the age of 6, whereas Yeats was a more permanent resident of Ireland. --Noleander (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really an issue for that talkpage, but that would be equally wrong. To express ambiguity about Shakleton's nationality, we should say something like "Irish-born English" or whatever is appropriate, not make reference to his ethnicity. --FormerIP (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anglo-Irish as Ireland was not independent at that time and that is how many people identified themselves. Jack1956 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anglo-Irish is not a nationality, it is a class, see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Anglo_Irish. Sheodred (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Literal?
"...literally and symbolically, his 'country of the heart'." "Country of the heart" is figurative, not literal. Mike Hayes (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding Yeats' health (section: Old Age and Death)
The section 'Old Age and Death' currently begins:


 * By early 1925, Yeats' health had stabilised...

But unless I missed it there was no preceding text that indicated he had health concerns. So as it stands it just sort of leaps out of nowhere. Can anyone fill the gap? --bodnotbod (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Irish? Anglo-Irish?
"William Butler Yeats (pronounced /ˈjeɪts/; 13 June 1865 - 28 January 1939) was an Irish poet, dramatist, and one of the foremost figures of 20th century literature." Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Yeats identify himself as Anglo-Irish? If so, shouldn't the article do the same? Varsovian (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the answer here; I have been listing him as Irish due to the backlash associated with putting something else. He was not born Irish, but he died Irish, so whatever works best is fine with me. I think Anglo-Irish is probably the most correct. Mrathel (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, he was 100% Irish. He was born in Sandymount in Dublin, in Ireland; he lived Irish and died Irish. He was about as Anglo-Irish as the PIRA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 17:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anglo-Irish descent. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people with Protestant backgrounds were influential in and around the Irish nationalist movement, see Protestant Irish nationalists. Yeats was more of an inspirer than an activist, but for example intervened in the Conscription Crisis of 1918 than briefly united all strands of nationalist opinion.86.42.196.27 (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is an Englishman who was born in the Cape, raised in the Cape and died in the Cape considered a Xhosa then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.198.190.98 (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, apparently so. — Jon C.  ॐ  16:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, a dog born in the stables isn't a horse. But the Irishness of Yeats is glaringly obvious in his life and poetry. If he had English blood, what of it? He wrote of Irish blood. --Akafd76 02:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akafd76 (talk • contribs)

Requested move
W. B. Yeats -->W.B. Yeats. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Put in a redirect page and call it a day, this is not worth discussing if it amounts to removing the spacing in a name. 98.248.208.142 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC) sorry, forgot to log in... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why we need the full-stops at all. It looks silly, akin to when people write out "U.S.A." or "N.A.S.A.". JonC Talk 22:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's probably an MoS guideline on this. --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * MoS or M.o.S., FormerI.P.? :) JonC Talk 06:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Har, prob M. o. S. And for once I agree with Jonchapple. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No reason for the move has been given, and it is standard English practice to put a space between initials. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No its not. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's standard American English practice, but America is not the World... JonC Talk 11:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And WB was -we'll agree at least- not American, so Brit Eng trumps here. Ceoil (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's against consensus, but I'm not crazy that the page was moved from William Butler Yeats to W. B. Yeats. That said, the spaces are annoying, however it's punctuated will be non-standard for someone, somewhere in the world, so I think it should go back to Willam Butler. If that's not possible, then the spaces should be removed in lieu of removing punctuation. I've been trying to ignore this, but ... well it's hard to. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the Modern Language Association, abbreviations of (at least) up to three letters should be without periods or spaces. (In other words, it should be "WB Yeats").        Shrillpicc100 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeats' view of the Irish Language
Does anybody know what Yeats's view of Irish was? Did he ever go to the Gaeltacht like Synge to learn it? What role did he see for the language in his cultural revival? (I can't find the answers in this article)79.97.64.240 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
There have a lot of new edits here in the past week,, and I'm wondering whether this page is being used for a class project? Certainly the page can do with some small amount of clean up and development, but to avoid it from being delisted from the WP:Featured article status, please make sure the edits adhere to Wikipedia's Manual of style. For now I've removed the infobox; adding one will require consensus. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there! We are conducting a project on Wikipedia, but our efforts are not simply about editing the page. We chose this page because we have spent several months in in-depth study with Yeats and his work and are concerned about the validity and accessibility of the page. Much of the content remains the same, we have only reorganized it to make it more cohesive, removed some of the unnecessary editorializing in Yeats's romantic life, and added to the Style section to assist readers in getting a better idea of Yeats, as he primarily operated in three periods. (See Howes, Marjorie. "Introduction" to the Yeats Cambridge Companion.) We did review the previous discussions regarding content and regarding the info box, but there has not been discussion on it in a few years and it seemed relevant. It makes more sense to delete controversial sections of the infobox than deleting the entire resource. Electriclights (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)ElectricLights


 * Hi, thanks so much for responding. I've left a message at the Education noticeboard to see if we can get you some help from a Campus Ambassador, otherwise I'll offer to steer you. We have to follow certain guidelines in terms of structure and how the table of contents is set up, particularly for featured articles. It would have been great to see work done on his works, most of which really needs it, but in terms of editing the biography, it's fine as long as not too much clean up is required after. Infoboxes are not mandatory, and your professor might be interested in WP:DISINFOBOX. Anyway, infoboxes are very contentious because some editors (those who work this page, for instance), don't necessarily believe in relegating an entire life to a box. So, yes, we like to get consensus.  In terms of his romantic life - the relationships with Maud and Olivia were crucial to the poetry. Is there any way of doing the work without resectioning completely? Also when text gets moved, don't forget to move the accompanying citations so we don't end up with uncited and unreferenced sections. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to post here or you can post to my page too. In the meantime, I've undone the reversion because I suspect you all have to get this work done by a certain date. Victoria (tk) 00:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I wonder if it would be better to revert and ask the students (assuming it's a class assignment) to work on a subpage. Live editing to a featured article is not such a good idea, given how much work has gone into the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, featured articles come with the invitation "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.", and start their day on the Main page unprotected, so that even IP users can edit. It tells me that live editing to a featured article is welcome. - For an article I wrote, I would like updating edits in small portions, with precise edit summaries as to what was changed, to make checking (and if needed reverting) easier. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, but I don't know whether the grade depends on having the work in mainspace and I wouldn't want them to get a bad grade because of my reversion. On the other hand, the most recent version I've reverted back to would be cause for a delisting, and that's not fair either. can you let us know when the work is due, and maybe mention this in class to your professor? If he/she wants to, I'd be more than happy to explain, either here or in email. A user's email can be found by clicking on their user page, and then clicking the "email this user" link on the toolbox menu on the left of the screen. Also, I've asked  (who is a campus ambassador) to have a look. Victoria (tk) 01:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again! Thank you very much for the resources. Our project will be complete by Wednesday morning (December 3), but we are very interested in revitalizing discussion on the Yeats page. Here is a comprehensive list of our edits: (1) edited headings (adding periodization to biography and style to improve comprehension; (2) taking out the subheadings Maud Gonne and the Abbey Theatre, which were very important parts of Yeats's life and work, but which spanned his life - so we included parts of each in each of his life periods and did not actually take away any content about either except a bit about Maud Gonne's divorce, which seemed to be better suited to her page or the page of John MacBride; (3) adding The Occult under Early Years because this was where he primarily focused on the occult (though it is noted later that he did not give up this preoccupation later, it is just where he focused on it the most)); (4) adding an infobox (the current Featured Article for today has an infobox, so I'm not sure why adding one would dissolve this article's status as featured); and (5) adding content and poem excerpts to each of the "Style" subheadings (Early, Middle, and Later Years). We did do significant research on how best to approach editing the page and added references to our information, so while we may have underestimated the gravity of editing a main page, we did perform these edits with the intention of making the page more comprehensive and accessible to viewers. Would it be possible to continue conversation on permanently incorporating these edits? We did receive a few thank-yous for our edits to the page, so it seems that we are not isolated in our interest in improving the navigation of the page. At the very least, keeping the expanded Style section and infobox seem like they would improve the page tremendously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electriclights (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * HI thanks for responding. Since it's due on Wednesday, I'll go through this afternoon and post a review here in terms of the edits made and why the article at this point might fail FA guidelines. I've only had time to glance at it, but I'm mostly worried that some inline citations got lost during the shifts. The article has degraded quite a bit over the years, so at this point it's important for us to keep the integrity and structure as much as possible to build on. Also, the section headers are problematic (think of our WP:MOS in terms of following MLA formatting rules. For featured articles, we tend to be picky. No the infobox wouldn't have cause a delisting, that's a separate issue. In regards to thanks, I hate to have to pull out dirty laundry, but like anywhere else Wikipedia has a lot of insider fighting and politics and unfortunately you guys have stepped into an issue that people have strong opinions of. In terms of revitalizing discussion and building improving the page - I'm all for it! It's a huge topic, difficult to distill into encyclopedic format, and so all the help is more than welcome. I'll post back later (and might make a few edits in the meantime, too). Thanks again for engaging in discussion. Victoria (tk) 18:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Victoria; sorry to see the problem here. You might refer the students to WP:OWN.  Also, since they never added a student template to the page, and don't seem to be working under any guidance of the Education Program, they might also consider WP:MEAT.  Because I have never yet been shown an example of students staying on as regular Wikipedia editors once their course ended, and have found efforts to educate them about Wikipedia guidelines and policies to be in vain, I typically support reverting, and conservation of your own time in terms of explaining how Wikipedia works.  The professor should have done that.  If you find the material problematic, I support revert and let the professor come forward so s/he can be educated, and the students can be put through some of the Education Program training modules, or encouraged to work in sandbox.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments

 * I don't have Howes at hand (and can't view on G-books and won't go out right now to the library) but I do have David Holdeman's The Cambridge Introduction to W. B. Yeats, (2008 ed). The article is now structured very similarly to what I see in the table of contents in that book, which gives me pause.
 * Does this addition have a souce?
 * Also, try to vary the wording, "This can be seen", "This poem", etc.
 * Mention of "Dialogue between Self and Soul" has been removed here, but a cursory source check returns quite a lot about it. A full source check, i.,e into academic databases, would return more, so it's a point that should probably stay in. Here's what was removed from the article and it is referenced:
 * Disagree with moving mention of "The Second Coming" out of the biography article, diff. Sometimes we have overlap in literature articles, which is okay. But basically he was disenchanted in 1920, as was Ezra Pound, and in my view it's important to show context for the works within the biography/chronology.
 * Section headings, see here. Yeats and Marriage should be "Yeats and marriage", but more importantly he married Georgie. He didn't marry Olivia or Maude and so it's fine to mention Georgie here.
 * Issues with TOC and section levels. I don't have time at the moment to pull up all the relevant policies, but knows them off the top of her head and might be able to throw in the relevant links. Otherwise I'll add them myself later.  Victoria (tk) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, section headings are all off now, but if this article is now substantially duplicating one of the sources, in terms of organization, that does give pause in terms of respect of copyright, so why not just revert it all ? See WP:MSH.   The section headings now have uppercase where they should not, special characters, and I'm unsure if they comply with bio guidelines, as I haven't kept up with those guidelines recently.  ALso see WP:DASH-- there are now hyphens in the headings which should be WP:ENDASHes (and perhaps that has occurred throughout).  Fastest way forward here may to be revert all, and then systemically review what is worth reinstating.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to find the full copy of the source they're using but can't. Looking through the new text, this bolded portion made me laugh for reasons that will be obvious to us:


 * Anyway, huge page ranges, WP:CITEVAR issues, etc., etc., etc. I think we have a consensus to revert, so I'm reverting and then unwatching until my semester is finished. If the professor or any of the students want to get in touch with me, I'd be happy to engage in outreach. Victoria (tk) 23:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)