Talk:W. B. Yeats/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Article lede is not a good overview

The article lede (the two paragraphs at the start) seems to have some rather obscure or trivial statements that don't seem important enough to belong in the introduction. Maybe someone can explain why it's significant that he wrote an introduction for Tagore. Why is Pound described as a Bollingen Prize laureate? Is this at all relevant? Is Pound even one of Yeats's closest friends? Is Yeats's relationship with e.g. Eliot more important? Is it more important to mention his great-grandfather (or his descent the Earls of Ormond) than his distinguished father? Is there anything else that should be included? I think it should mention his relationship to the late 19th century Celtic Revival in the UK, and should probably try to sum up his various intellectual threads (occult, Golden Dawn, mysticism, nationalism, etc) more neatly. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is a bland white blanket, just like frozen snow. being spread over the biography of William Butler Yeats? Is Roy Foster being paid to bury facts about W B Yeats by the Irish Republic?

Dear Readers,

I just looked up the superb history of Yeats on Wikipedia. I've used it lots of times. It has taught me the basic facts about Yeats's life and shown me the difficult phases, when he became depressed, ill, or incapable. And it showed me his faults as well, his humanity, including his kindness, his way of finding and making the most of every opportunity to look after himself and his wider family, his multiple affairs.

Why did I need to know so much about him? Because in 2006 I discovered that I'm the grand-daughter of William Butler Yeats and Lily O'Neill. She doesn't appear in his biography at all because in 1925 she was murdered at the behest of Yeats's wife, George (she preferred a masculine name though she was christened Georgie.) Yeats's affair with Lily started when she was 19 and he was 54 and she bore his first son, Kevin O'Neill. but apart from being very young, she was also Catholic and working class, while Yeats was a Senator in the new Irish Free State. Nevertheless he was in love with her and not with his wife (as shown in his poetry). Enraged, George persuaded her best friend Kevin O'Higgins, the Vice-President of the new Free State and its Minister of Justice and External Affairs, to use his newly formed police force, the Garda Siochana. Accordingly O'Higgins ordered his recently-promoted Superintendent Leopold Dillon to find her and murder her. Yeats was also very worried about his son being murdered, as shown in his poem 'A Prayer To My Son'.

Over the last ten years I have been informing Roy Foster of the above since he has occupied the Chair of Carroll Professor of Irish Literature at Hertford College, Oxford University, but he has ignored me.

At the same time I have been requesting disclosure of the files and records of the murder of my grandmother, Lily O'Neill, fro the Irish Minister of Justice and the Garda Siochana, but they have also ignored me.

During this period I have noticed that fewer and fewer facts are available about Yeats. One example of this is the re-writing of the Wikipedia page on Yeats: nowadays the only biographer mentioned, out of the thousands who have written about him, is Foster - and he has very little to say, though his words are very soothing.

And Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum total of knowledge on a subject!Paddykraut (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

IRB membership

Surely Yeats' membership of the Irish Republican Brotherhood is worthy of at least a mention in this article? 37.228.205.224 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does, in addition to some mention of Maud Gonne's influence and his activities for a few years after he joined. Richard Ellmann's book would be a good source but I do not have it. If you have that, or another reliable source, tell us the source and page number(s) of the part describing Yeats' membership in the IRB. Kablammo (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an FA quality article

This article was promoted to FA in 2004, and reviewed last in 2007 when it was kept. The FA criteria have since changed a great deal, and I do not believe the article currently qualifies. It fails most dramatically on the criterion of comprehensiveness - leaving out almost all of his political life, about the contradictions of which much has been written, but also does not give an adequate introduction to his poetry and poetic views. I will leave this notice for a couple of weeks, and if there is no response I will move to nominate for a Featured Article Review.

Big sigh. Okay, Maunus, I have sources I bought years ago but never got around to working on this. It's not in terrible shape and hadn't bubbled to the top, so to speak, but I'll take a crack at it. I very much doubt that I'll get to it before the required two weeks, just so you know. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help with it. I think it could perhaps do with a total restructuring. The two weeks aren't a hard deadline - just something I said to instill a sense of urgency. ;)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm kinda of not in wiki-urgent mode right now. :) Thanks, help is appreciated. Ceoil did a lot of work here too and I know he has sources, so it's doable. Will add it to the list. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree with Maunus's assessment. It certainly needs work here and there, good to see that fact brought to a head. The additions today, for eg, were very strong. I'd be up for a rework. Maunus, how do you see restructuring needs, as opposed to gaps in coverage. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I don't disagree either and let's be honest, we've known for a long time. I have Butler, Volume 1 at hand, and I think a Cambridge Companion (if I don't have the Cambridge Companion, I should), so can start getting a grip on some of the reading soonish. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd add that we didnt explain this as well as we might - Yeats' love was unrequited, in part due to his reluctance to participate in her nationalist activism.[40]. Vic, I agree that we saw this coming. A structured review would be welcome. I see gaps here and there, but all doable. But his political views in hindsight were not very admirable; I dont want to explore them that much, beyond a summary outline. His style is explored in dept; although here and there on the page. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Error

The caption under the last photo lists an incorrect date for Yeats's death. He died in 1939, but the caption says 1989. User: 141.110.57.168 19:43 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! It has now been fixed. Kablammo (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on W. B. Yeats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on W. B. Yeats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Goetheplakette_der_Stadt_Frankfurt_am_Main

Goethe Plaque of the City of Frankfurt was awarded to W.B.Yeats in 1933, see for example de.wikipedia.org, article Goetheplakette_der_Stadt_Frankfurt_am_Main Baple (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Baple (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to add a reliable source. Wikipedia is not considered to be one. CassiantoTalk 19:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Further to that, though it's probably true that he received this award, it's not obvious that it should be mentioned in lead. Not quite in the same league as the Nobel Prize. Favonian (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's definitely not suitable for the lead. I've added a mention of that award in the article on The Countess Cathleen to which is was closely related. (And the German Wikipedia seems to be wrong about the year.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

What happened to this article, seriously? After reaching Featured Article, nobody bothered to maintain it. Someone came in, deleted large tracts of the texts, so it now reads with lots of annoying non-Wikipedia conventions - boldings everywhere, for instance. The lead now contains lots of pointless information which should be shifted down, like his high school. Mandel 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably due to the "Early life and work" section heading disappearing at some point. —johndburger 23:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Doing a comparison between the pre-FA and current version shows that the changes haven't been too drastic, but it would probably be worth sifting through them to see if something important has been lost. — Stumps 08:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I moved the Nobel reference back to the Introduction. Given how short the intro is now, this could be shortened, with another mention in one of the later sections, including the quote from the Nobel committee. I kind of like the short intro better than that in the FA version of the article. —johndburger 10:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Having just looked over the article as it was on Nov 3rd 2004 (when it was featured article) it seems that it has gone drastically down-hill. The "Style" section, for instance, is awful; subjective, poorly and confusingly written, lacking in evidence (i.e., "Some critics claim that Yeats..." - Who??), and overly opinionated. The quality of syntax makes the entry extremely difficult to understand in places and somewhat reminiscent of a high-school essay: "Yeats chooses words and puts them together so that in addition to a particular meaning they suggest other meanings that seem more significant." An entry on the style of a poet should not veer into uncited personal interpretations of a poet's work. Statements regarding poetic style should have their basis in publically available criticism that comes from a reliable and distinguished source. I am suggesting a rewrite of this section, unless anyone has any objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.212.151 (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit; I agree the section is underdeveloped and can be improved yet. Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you do, keep the quote from Auden Rogergreatorex (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Shouldn't the lead state that he wrote in English? Srnec (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde doesn't, Edward Walsh doesn't, Francis Davis doesn't, even James Joyce doesn't. So not sure about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Very considered response as usual Martin. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Nor am I, but doesn't "Irish poet" seem ambiguous, given Irish language? Like calling Vladimir Nabokov a Russian novelist without clarification. Srnec (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
There may be some very slight ambiguity, although we don't have "Irish poet".Do you have an elegant remedy in mind? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeats, the Anglo-Nationalist

To associate Yeats with the IRB yet to omit his views (admirably expressed in his poetry) on the lockout or Easter 1916 is to misrepresent him and the part he (didn't) play(ed). The by now only to be expected stress on the Anglo (his Anglo-Irishness) is to fly in the face of experience. The genius of the English language eventually prevailed in Ireland but several waves of visitors had less of a long term impact than the country and its people had on them so the habit of claiming Yeats, Shaw, Wilde for their Angloness when there's every chance it was the Irishness which incubated their genius just comes across as pure silly, little better than Rangers and Celtic fans, Liverpool and Everton, Sunni and Shia fighting over minor doctrinal differences, though I have to say, seeing the Irish continually short changed over the short term is impetus enough to make them try harder and isn't that 'wot produces results..

So, please rethink Yeats the Anglo-Nationalist because you just can't have your cake and eat it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.125.43.163 (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Issues

Sometimes things just "creep in" but can someone look at the "Further reading" and "External links" sections for trimming.
  • Further reading; has 20 entries and some need to be checked for relevance to the subject. There is also a "See also" and it is baffling as to why this is, a)- in the article section, and b)- in the article at all.
To prevent possible tagging (Template:Too much further reading or {{Template:Further reading cleanup}}), would someone look at this?
  • External links; has 18 entries. While 3-5 (4 or five with some discussion of importance or relevance) it seems that half this amount would be a good definition of link farming.
To prevent possible tagging ({{External links}}), would someone also look at this? Otr500 (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree, yes they do creep in, and done. Ceoil (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding an Infobox Writer Template.... why should it be removed?

Hello, my name is Yaron and recently I have added an Infobox Writer Template to the W.B. Yeats article. Only came to find out that the template was removed and figure out why it should be removed. Despite my clear view that it has to be remain as an addition which will enrich the article with more information. Thanks a lot, Yaron --Yaronbutler2 (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yaron, thank you for coming here to discuss. As indicated several places above, many of us believe that necessary summary information can appear at the start of the article, rather than in an infobox. If the information is not of prime importance, it should go in the text, rather than in an infobox (and it appears that your infobox contains a lot of information already covered in the text). This is both for the sake of appearance, as well as the tendency of these boxes to become repositories of unimportant information. In any event, infoboxes are not mandatory, and established practice is not likely to be overturned. Kablammo (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea that he doesn't need an infobox. In particular I think it'd be important that we add an Infobox:officeholder template, given his time as a Senator in Seanad Éireann. That is a salient detail of his life often neglected or pushed aside. The office being displayed in the infobox would give readers a quick overview of the fact that he was indeed an Irish senator for a period, as well as other important quick, at-a-glance details such as his marriage. Irishpolitical (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no "special arrangement" for infoboxes for writers, like there is for musicians. I'd have no objection to an infobox. But it's not worth fighting over.Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The January attempt wasn't very good, with several mistakes and dubious bits, and probably the last thing it needs is Infobox:officeholder template (which he wasn't, strictly). The article could do with more on this aspect of his career though. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, he was member of the 1922 Seanad and a Member of the 1925 Seanad, buy he held no office. Surely Infobox writer would be more appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
He held the office of Senator surely? It's a relevant point to include in the infobox. But that's besides the point. In principle is there any opposition to the presence of an infobox, providing it's done right and accurately? Irishpolitical (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Probably, because it is unlikely to be done right and accurately without even more argument, and will take up lots of space. Really it's better to just add his dates to the picture caption or something. For example, everyone for 70 or more years has used a "collected" volume of the poetry, and it is poems rather than the original collections that are important. So all that is best left. There are really very many infobox-suitable things about him that effectively summarize him. Strictly an "office" would be a government job, rather than a member of the legislature. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why any infobox can't be 100% accurate. If there's doubt, it can be left out. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's where we are now. Mere accuracy isn't the issue, though the January attempt wasn't all accurate. Infobox issues are being discussed once again. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. But I think I'd rather poke rusty pins into my own eyes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Very wise! Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to revisit the discussion about including an infobox. The main argument against, of course, is that the information is already there. However, I believe there are a number of arguments for including one, primarily that infoboxes are helpful both for low-level readers of English and machines, as they are much easier to parse then English prose. See Infobox#Machine_learning for example. I would also argue the presence of an infobox does not detract from the article itself, as it's easy for normal readers to ignore (it takes up no more room, since it goes in the area below the picture which is blank now). Other evidence might be:

So overall I'd propose adding the infobox. (You can see a version with an infobox here, for reference.) After all, we'd like info on our favorite authors and poets to be as easy to access as possible. What do others think? LouScheffer (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is little need and less benefit. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for why we don't rely on just churning lists of potentially similar articles to justify adding or removing anything. At the end of the day, nothing has changed since the last time this was discussed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree there is little or no need or benefit for you. But for readers and other users, there are benefits. As one example, I was trying to collect information about Nobel Prize winners. This is easier and more reliable for facts from infoboxes, as opposed to trying to parse English text. Lots of other services, such as Alexa and Siri, also source data from Wikipedia, and making this more reliable is a benefit. Second, I find infoboxes helpful when looking at wikis where I don't speak the language. For example, when looking up Brazilian Minister of Justice Bernardo Cabral, I find information from the infobox (such as where he went to school) that I could not parse from the text. Since the cost to the reader is low to none, I think the benefits outweigh the costs. LouScheffer (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually Alexa and Siri take factoids from Wikidata. They take the entire first paragraph of text which they recite verbatim and we (either as WP or as users) don't get paid for providing information into these money-making gorgons. I don't why you need to stress "for you": I am a reader of WP as well as an editor, and many of the reasons why IBs infuriate me is the sheer dumbing down and stripping out of context in a box to which the eye is automatically drawn. If there eye is drawn there, there is therefore an impression that "this is important", whereas most of the things in an IB are fluff and trivia. (which school a Brazilian president went to is such an example: where do you draw the line? neck size? Height? inside leg measurement? - whatever you are looking for is someone else's trivia, so we either end up with short stubby boxes that repeat the first sentence, or hugely bloated monstrosities that distract and oversimplify). - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The reasons are given in the prior discussions. Among them is that the presentation in infobox fields of discrete factoids, without context, gives undue emphasis and tends to oversimplify. An example: The infobox you added listed Yeats' era as "Victorian". Why? Simply because the old queen's life overlapped his? Or did he have a Victorian outlook (whatever that means)? Are we to summarize his work by that term? Take a look at Fallis, Richard. "Yeats and the Reinterpretation of Victorian Poetry" Victorian Poetry, vol. 14, no. 2, 1976, pp. 89–100. That nuance cannot be contained within an infobox. Kablammo (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand your concern. But it is perhaps an argument for not including "era" (or other nuanced information) in an infobox, not an argument against infoboxes in general. LouScheffer (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, still opposed. This discussion started 15 months ago & should now be regarded as finished. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree, can't see any reason to rehash the same arguments again. Ceoil (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Date of early photograph

In the section "Maud Gonne" is a photograph captioned, "W. B. Yeats (no date)". In the article on "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" the same photograph appears, dated 1890. It would be an improvement if the date could be supplied for this article. How can we establish its accuracy? J S Ayer (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The date on the photograph in The Lake Isle of Innisfree article is not sourced. According to the details on Wikimedia there is no precise date. Regards. Denisarona (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Chantry House, Steyning

The article has an image with the caption: "Chantry House, Steyning. A plaque on the wall reads "William Butler Yeats 1865–1939 wrote many of his later poems in this house." But when did Yeats move there? I think the article should say. The only online source I can find is this one which says from 1937. But it doesn't look very reliable (it also gives the address as 51 Church Street, which differs from the 34 Church Street given in the house article). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This search on Google Scholar suggests that his residency of Chantry House has been mentioned in a few books, but I'm not sure how accessible they are. JezGrove (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I guess it wasn't a formal residence as such, but just the home of his last mistress Edith Shackleton Heald? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed it. While there may be a connection, it contributes nothing to our understanding of the poet. Kablammo (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your removal and your reasoning. The house has a commemorative blue plaque, so that's directly relevant to Yeats. And if it's true that "he wrote many of his later poems in this house" (and why would it not be?), that's also relevant. His relationship with Edith Shackleton Heald, which seems to have been based at this residence, was a significant one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Ellmann's biography contains no mention it, and it appears that other sources are sparse. Yeats wrote a lot of poems, likely in a lot of places, but unless there is some connection between the work and place (as with Coole Park) I don't see see the relevance. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
You think we should just ignore a commemorative blue plaque on the house of his lover? And how come Edith Shackleton Heald gets all that detail about her relationship with Yeats in her article, but there's not one single mention of her in this one? R. F. Foster, Yeats' official biographer, certainly mentions her. Thanks. 10:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Martinevans123 (talk)
Hello again. Good find on the mention of Heald. I'm surprised that Ellmann does not mention her. If the relationship was significant I don't object to adding a mention to this article.
On the plaque: This is apparently not a Blue Plaque in the strict sense, but rather a listing in a compilation of many thousands of sites in England maintained by Historic England. Its listing for the house in question states: "The house has a tablet recording that: 'William Butler Yeats, 1859-1939, wrote many of his later poems in this house'." I don't think this tablet qualifies as in independent reliable source, and I can't find where that assertion was vetted by any such source. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Well ok, there are blue plaques and blue plaques. A nicety for the general reader, I suspect. I would be very surprised if Historic England would make such a claim, on a publicly displayed plaque, without some firm evidence. Perhaps there is an expert there who could be contacted? We need to search for sources, anyway, I guess. Would you care to re-instate the image of the house? Or do we need some source(s) to support the claim first? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I think I will ask the reliable sources noticeboard about the site. I'll link to this discussion from there. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Martin, I've posted there. I don't know if the discussion will continue there or here. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow the blue plaque/blue plaque distinction being made. Is it known who actually placed the tablet in question? Was it Historic England, or do they simply record that there is a plaque by ... somebody? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure. It seems there is no image of the plaque on line. But I've found a book source, about the poems and letters he wrote at the house, here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
ME, I agree that your source supports the assertion on the tablet. So if you wish to replace the image I will not delete it. I suggest that you include a link to the Yeats Annual article. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Back to my original reason for this thread.... I don't think we should have just the image, even with a referenced caption, without some text. So I'll add something, ok? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I will leave that up to you, but this is a long article covering a long and eventful life, so I suggest keeping it brief. And again, nice job on the research! Kablammo (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Long as the article may be, I can't quite believe it currently contains no mention at all of Edith Shackleton Heald, who is notable in her own right. If anyone in the Horsham area of West Sussex would like to take their daily COVID lock-down exercise by taking a picture of the plaque, I'm sure that would be very welcome. It might be a good way to test their eyesight? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

British?

Was Yeats British as well as Irish? The article currently has three "British" Categories, but this is not mentioned in the article text. Previously discussed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Such categories have zero use for someone who wasn't "British" save for him being a British subject for part of his life. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that any Categories should be supported by article content. Surely, until 1922, he was British? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
As were George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, et al. prior to 1776. Kablammo (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, so George has Category:British America army officers, but Benjamin and Adams have none. Perhaps details of Yeats' place of birth, in the infobox and article text, are enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose an infobox, naturally. CassiantoTalk 21:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Well naturally. But I guess this doesn't make him any more, or less, British. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I've never really understood, but what's the difference between "British" and "English"? The Scots get to say they are Scottish; the Irish get to say they are...well, Irish, but in my experience, people who are from England resent calling themselves "English" and opt instead for "British". CassiantoTalk 23:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The difference is Scotland and Wales. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Reflecktor. Re your recent revert here, I'm not sure this discussion has yet been satisfactorily resolved. You may wish to add a comment? Ireland was part of Britain in 1865, and remained so for most of Yeates' life? I think it's debatable. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources do not refer to him as British at all, not only that but it's standard to not name former colonial subjects by their colonial demonym, that's why Gandhi is Indian, not British for instance. Reflecktor (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Good point. I thought much of his work was inspired by his struggle against the British nationality that he felt was imposed upon him? Perhaps the same could be said of Ghandi. You'd expect to see Yeats excluded from anthologies of "British poetry"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC) p.s. but thanks for adding the plaque by English Heritage. lol
I mean if you put 'Yeats British poet' into Google Scholar you get no results calling him British, instead its Yeats railing against the British that comes up. Reflecktor (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
But you'll find him included here and in many others, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Well I think its worth making a distinction between 'British poetry' and 'British poets'. 'British poetry' here could refer to a tradition or style of poetry that is British but that would not be tantamount to saying the poet(s) are British. The chapter of the book you mention which deals with Yeats interestingly does not call him a British poet, it merely remarks upon his status as part of a tradition of peotry which is British. It actually even references "his Irishness" Reflecktor (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe so. "English poetry" is also ambiguous, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

What Yeats meant to write was . . .

Anglo-Irish poets, learn your trade
Sing whatever is well-made . . .
That we in coming days may be
Still the indomitable Anglo-Irishry

Kablammo (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Very good. Yes, what he in fact wrote was Irish. But nationality isn't usually decided by the poems a person composes? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding no infobox consensus

Since the non-use of an infobox in this article was just asked about at WP:THQ#Removal of Infobox on this page: W. B. Yeats, perhaps it would be a good idea to add a WP:HIDDEN to the edit syntax near the image at the top of the article to advise others that a consensus has been previously established against adding one and that those wanting to add one should discuss things on the talk page first. This might not stop everyone from trying to add one, but it will at least be one way to let others know why one isn't being currently used. Not many editors (particularly new editors) are going to know enough about Wikipedia editing to check this talk page or its archives for any relevant discussion. Most likely they're just going to assume that it's ok to just be WP:BOLD and add one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No objection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
As this section title is somewhat ambiguous, here's a Courtesy Link to past discussions which apparently show an agreement (consensus) NOT to have an Infobox in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:W._B._Yeats/Archive_2#Infobox (Note: there are 73 mentions of 'Infobox' on that page.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
... and a modern consensus not to have that awful stain at the top of the article begins to emerge. Hooray. Hurrah!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a consensus for no infobox. Even if there was one at some time several years ago, new editors and new readers may well have a different view. The number of times an editor has added an infobox, only to have it removed, speaks of a lack of consensus. The current status, I believe, is that there is no consensus one way or another. LouScheffer (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Why no infobox?

I’m just confused as to why articles like W.B. Yeats do not have an infobox but articles like John Butler Yeats do.

As a Wikipedia beginner I find this inconsistency extremely odd. Myself and certainly many others find infoboxes really useful. It’s actually often the first thing I read when reading articles on Wikipedia. I also thought it’s especially important for someone like W.B. Yeats to have one, because a lot of his family members also have articles and having an infobox with links to them would have been great I thought.

If someone could briefly explain this to me it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Scooch Cubing (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you see the discussion above, from 2018/19? But, yes, it is inconsistent: Louis MacNeice, Seamus Heaney and Iris Murdoch all have one. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
As somebody not opposed to infoboxes in general but against one for this article, Scooch this is (amazingly) a major, long running and deeply personalised (although a lot of the most entrenched warriors are friends when talking about other things) battleground on wikipedia and after numerous, bloody discussions, the consensus is that the parameters are too reductive for this bio. Note consensus here isn't about counting votes, but takes into account the weight of arguments. You have presented none, or at least nothing that is new, which is grand as your account is new and you are just asking....re consistency, yes for sure, but consistency for consistency's sake is something I don't really understand, and to be glib, not something mr Yeats would have either. Anyway, later. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Martin my friend....feel free to start "remove infobox" discussions on those bios. I'll back you up (cough) :) Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
"When all that story's finished, what's the news? In luck or out the toil has left its mark: That old perplexity an empty purse, Or the day's vanity, the night's remorse." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I consider myself only recently old, having been young only 25 years ago. So I dont know who else you are taking 'bout Martin. But anyway Scooch, hope this v brief and maybe biased refresher answers some of your questions. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Haha. Lucky for some. But Scooch, that is quite a fair summary. "Though leaves are many, the root is one; Through all the lying days of my youth I swayed my leaves and flowers in the sun; Now I may wither into the truth.". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How did he die

How did he die 80.233.46.47 (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Ellman does not give a cause of death, nor does Foster, but as to "how" he died, Foster provides the following:
  • On Saturday 21 January 1939, Wellesley had "never seen [him] in better health, wits, charm or vitality."
  • The next day WBY was still lively, but "the exceptional coldness was aggravating his angina."
  • On Monday 23 January he began to weaken, and cancelled an engagement the next day.
  • On Thursday, 26 January, he was ill, breathing with difficulty, and received morphine. He "wandered a little in his speech" and "knew he was dying", according to Wellesley.
  • On Friday he sank even further, and
  • on Saturday he was in pain and received morphine early in the morning. He died at about 2:00 in the afternoon.
Foster 2003, pp. 650-51.
Kablammo (talk)

Style concern in the "Politics" section

In the following sentence,

"On the other hand, he was also an elitist who abhorred the idea of mob-rule, and saw democracy as a threat to good governance and public order."

the beginning - "on the other hand" - suggests a contradiction of this position to his support for fascism, but there is no contradiction. It is, in fact, exactly what you'd expect from a fascist intellectual. 2001:818:DE24:7500:D0F3:B04D:2CAA:DDCD (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

changed. 89.101.60.19 (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:W._B._Yeats/Archive_3&oldid=1188535173"