Talk:George Bernard Shaw

Forenames, usage and acceptance of

"..after 1876, he dropped the "George" and styled himself "Bernard Shaw"."

This may have been the case in conversation, though direct evidence as opposed to subsequent self-reporting appears to be lacking. It is certainly not the case as regards writing; in the Collected Letters 1874–1897 one can readily see that Shaw, predominantly throughout 1885 and for a time into 1886, signed himself "George Bernard Shaw" alike to strangers and intimates. Writing in March 1885 to the wife of William Archer, his valediction is

yours faithfully

George Bernard Shaw

(I am forming the habit of signing the name by which posterity will revere me)

and therefore, as a writer who at that stage was barely published and thus entirely uncommitted to a particular pen name, he is highly likely to have had no revulsion at the thought of in future being revered under the name of "George".

Moreover, it follows that we need not refer to him in other articles as "Bernard Shaw" if, as is the case, he is more familiar to the general reader as "George Bernard Shaw". Harfarhs (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That is why the article uses both his Christian names. But if you glance at the list of sources you will that almost all reputable authorities respect his wishes and refer to him simply as "Bernard Shaw". It behoves us to follow suit. Tim riley talk 16:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

While I am fascinated by the question of why he dropped "George" for professional work (while not disavowing it privately) and I wonder why the general public has taken to using "George" to the exclusion of his preference, it is nonetheless the case that that is what has happened. Wikipedia has guidelines that the most common name be used. We may defer to the preferences of a living person, but we have no such obligation to the dead. So he is George Bernard Shaw here.128.151.71.7 (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Another matter which the article really ought to touch upon, and which is invisible otherwise, is the pronunciation of the name Bernard. In Ireland and the British Isles generally, this name has its emphasis upon the initial syllable, as Bernard; and the vowel of the second an unstressed schwa. Whereas, it is typically pronounced in North America with the emphasis reversed, i.e., Bernard.

Nuttyskin (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a soundclip somewhere of Shaw introducing himself on the radio, and I think, from memory, that he stressed both syllables of 'Bernard' equally. That doesn't and probably shouldn't affect where English and American speakers stress the name. I don't think any of the three is more correct than the others. Tim riley talk 08:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

GBS and Stalin

Bernard Shaw was born in 1856; Josif Djhugasvili was born in 1879. In other words, GBS was twenty years Stalin's senior.

In 1929, Stalin's 50th birthday was widely celebrated and he began to acquire the status of a demi-god; soon he overshadowed his contemporaries -- many of whom he would eliminate in the Show Trials of 1936-1938 and the Great Terror of 1937-1938 -- and even supplanted his patron Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), 1870-1924, in the Soviet pantheon. Bernard Shaw was, and remained, an irreverent critic of the British Establishment: he knew French but no Russian.

A fuller account of his 1931 interview with Stalin, reference supplied in text, suggests that he egged on his friend Nancy Astor in her sustained attack on the Georgian "gangster" (as she called Stalin). Shaw insisted, for example, that the unfortunate and reluctant interpreter translate all her questions into Russian. As author James Fox notes, the two of them were subsequently impressed by Stalin's self-restraint. Privately, the dictator told his daughter Svetlana that the meeting had been "most disagreeable" and that Shaw was, in his opinion, an "awful man".

This doesn't make the 'revolutionary tourism' of his brief 1931 visit to the USSR, or his serial infatuation with a succession of Bolshevik and fascist dictators, any less reprehensible. It does cast his character and attitude in a more nuanced and different light.

John Crowfoot aka Rustat99 (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why Stalin's age is of any relevance. Let us see if other interested editors agree with you. Tim riley talk 11:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Did one make age-related comments about the other that have come into print?Cloptonson (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

the-anti-semitism-of-george-bernard-shaw

https://www.jewishpress.com/sections/features/features-on-jewish-world/the-anti-semitism-of-george-bernard-shaw/2015/05/06/ »No doubt Jews are obnoxious creatures. Any competent historian or psychoanalyst can bring a mass of incontrovertible evidence to prove that it would have been better for the world if the Jews had never existed.«

»I think we ought to tackle the Jewish Question by admitting the right of the States to make eugenic experiments by weeding out any strains that they think undesirable, but insisting that they do it as humanely as they can afford to.«

General inhumanity: »I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?” If you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself…. I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short, a gentlemanly gas – deadly by all means, but humane not cruel.«

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw More quotes on Hitler (admiration for the Nazi regime) and Jews: tickle me 15:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? If you do, you will see that Shaw called antisemitism "the hatred of the lazy, ignorant fat-headed Gentile for the pertinacious Jew who, schooled by adversity to use his brains to the utmost, outdoes him in business". He was invited to write for The Jewish Chronicle, where he wrote in 1932, "In every country you can find rabid people who have a phobia against Jews, Jesuits, Armenians, Negroes, Freemasons, Irishmen, or simply foreigners as such. Political parties are not above exploiting these fears and jealousies." Tim riley talk 16:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I know that I am late to this, but I have to add that the article itself is a dog's dinner of mangled quotes that does not do its own case any good. The quote above under General inhumanity might serve as a good example. The first part of the quote before the ellipsis is taken from a YouTube snippet that ostensibly is taken from a speech on capital punishment. The part after the ellipsis is taken from a speech called "Whtither Britain?", where he discusses possibilities of the future of warfare, and how the half-measures taken by the League of Nations was insufficient to meet them. These have been juxtaposed by right-wing ideologues looking to smear Shaw for the last decade or so. If a source uses it, it is a surefire way to know that they've relied on secondary sources that are… dodgy, to put it mildly. 45.13.191.45 (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Nationality

Shaw is not British- he is Irish! ~2026-89096-3 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Please read the article and try to understand the difference between nationality and citizenship. Shaw was, as we correctly say, a British citizen all his life and had Irish co-citizenship in his later years. It isn't all that difficult to grasp if you try. Robert Burns was Scottish but also a British citizen. Dylan Thomas was Welsh but also a British citizen. Lewis Carroll was English but also a British citizen. Do you understand now? Tim riley talk 22:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello, @Tim riley. Could you please explain your recent reversion of my edit? Keeper of Albion (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Not good changes. Fatuous edit summmary: "Hitler did not die in May": please read the article more carefully: nowhere does it say so. We operate by consensus in Wikipedia, and so please seek a consensus for your desired alterations. Tim riley talk 18:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

‘Second World War and final years’, third paragraph:

"After Hitler's suicide in May 1945, Shaw approved of the formal condolences offered by the Irish Taoiseach, Éamon de Valera, at the German embassy in Dublin." Keeper of Albion (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Comma moved to make it easier for you to understand. Now, please propose any changes for which you seek a consensus or desist. Tim riley talk 18:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that for me, Tim; even if you gave in to the temptation to be condescending.

May you please explain your objection to spaced en dashes, (presumably) my interpretation of MOS:SURNAME and the rephrasing of the second paragraph to avoid the now-present MOS:SEAOFBLUE clash?

I repeat that spaced en dashes are preferred in British English:

https://www.ox.ac.uk/public-affairs/style-guide

https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-style-guide-d

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/style-guides/writing/house-style/#dashes Keeper of Albion (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It is simply not true to say that spaced en-dashes are preferred in BrE. I prefer them myself but a quick scan on my shelves reveals any number of both spaced en-dashes and unspaced em-dashes in books from English publishers. I have explained to you before why you persistently misrepresent MOS:SURNAME. I am not engaging any further with your quibbling. Please seek and obtain a consensus here for your desired alterations or leave us in peace. Tim riley talk 19:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any reason that isn’t afoul of WP:OR why we should take after the unspecified books of varying ages on your shelves rather than modern style guides, including that of the country’s top university? In fact, a mixture of en dashes and em dashes as well as the style guides would seem to weigh in my favour.

If your position on MOS:SURNAME is that some eminent persons need not their forenames written, perhaps you could explain to me how and why you apply this principle; specifically, how you determine who is sufficiently famous? And why you think this doesn’t conflict with the explanation and examples provided at MOS:SURNAME? Keeper of Albion (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

See above. Kindly obtain consensus here for your proposed alterations or stop importuning. Tim riley talk 07:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

That doesn’t address anything I wrote, Tim.

You’re free to cease replying or to mute me using your notifications preferences. Keeper of Albion (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to rebut your quibbling. It is on you, as I have now explained three times, I think, that if you want to make substantial changes to the text of this featured article you need to secure consensus here. I shall be grateful if you will stop importuning here and see instead if anyone else agrees with your proposals. Tim riley talk 17:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Tim Riley above. A consensus is needed before substantial changes can be made to the article. The proposed changes are not needed and are unhelpful. Jack1956 (talk)

• "spaced en-dashes are preferred in BrE": that's not true, I'm afraid. Both spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes are wholly acceptable. There is something in the MOS that says people shouldn't change punctuation style to fit their personal preferences, but I can't remember where to find it now. It's still worth remembering that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Keeper of Albion, you have several times above asked Tim to justify something. That is not how things work; the onus is on the editor wishing to make a change to justify the change proposed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Once upon a time the MOS mentioned something about using spaced en dashes for articles in British English, and unspaced em dashes for those in American English. That seems to have been removed – I'll speculate that the reason for doing so was a hope thereby to standardize one aspect of dash use. Harfarhs (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: spaced en dashes versus unspaced em dashes. Personally, I much prefer spaced en-dashes, but MOS:DASH says that the two are interchangeable, and it is optional which to choose, as long as it is consistent throughout the article. Then MOS:VAR very clearly says that if something is optional, and an existing article has chosen that option, then do not change it without consensus. So, one should not change an optional style in an existing article, especially a WP:FA, without first asking on the Talk page if anyone has an objection. If anyone does, then you can make a proposal to change it and see if you can gather a WP:CONSENSUS to do that.

Re: forenames and misc edits. If you are reading an article about Shaw, you very likely have some familiarity with the arts and/or the turn of the 20th century in Europe, but if you don't know who Stalin, Mussolini or Wagner are, then the name is linked, and you can click on the link. Even if you have never heard the word "playlet", you very likely can guess it with pinpoint accuracy; you know what a piglet and a booklet are. I don't think you want to link it and have the reader click away from Shaw to the link playlet, which is just a redirect to "play"; that article contains the buried unreferenced statement: "For a brief play, the term 'playlet' is occasionally employed." Not necessary. As Tim riley and others have indicated, if you have other objections to the stable version of the article, feel free to propose them here, and see if you can gather a consensus for any of them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking through the changes that KoA made, and which have since been reverted, I’m just not seeing what problem(s) they were trying to solve. They appear to be merely stylistic preferences, rather than the correction of errors, grammatical/historical etc., or beneficial expansions. As others suggest above, I think the best approach, should they wish to pursue this, would be for KoA to set out here the changes they want to make, and the reasons why they want to make them. Then interested editors can take a view. KJP1 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

British policy on Ireland

When noting some of his “contentious” views, the introduction includes the line: “…although not a republican, [he] castigated British policy on Ireland in the postwar period.”

This misrepresents the baseline of opinion by treating criticism of British policy as noteworthy, when in the aftermath of the War of Independence it was widespread and came from multiple political directions. It frames a broadly shared and historically grounded position as if it were “contentious”. His criticism of British policy on Ireland in encyclopaedic and should be included, but not among a list of supposedly contentious views. Jmcaoat (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you. GBS's views on Ireland were not universally held, particularly by the ruling establishment, and were ipso facto contentious it seems to me. But what do other editors think? Tim riley talk 12:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

H. H. Asquith: "Things are being done in Ireland which would disgrace the blackest annals of the lowest despotism in Europe."

Arthur Henderson: "A state of affairs prevails [in Ireland] which is a disgrace to the human race." (both quotes are given, à propos of the British government's use of the Black and Tans and the Auxies, in Taylor, English History 1914–45)

So Jmcaoat is quite right to say that condemnation of British actions in Ireland (certainly in 1920–21) "came from multiple political directions". However, my understanding is that the sentence under discussion has been included not because Shaw's castigation exhibited an unusual attitude, but because the subject is one of those on which his opinions became well-known. Perhaps the opinions were listened to all the more because of his Dublin origin. Harfarhs (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree that stating that Shaw castigated British policy somehow treats criticism of British policy as noteworthy, but rather, what is noteworthy *in this article* is simply that Shaw had an opinion on the issue and stated it so publicly that, as Harfarhs suggests, this position became well known. This article is not stating that his position was noteworthy in itself, but that it was of enough importance *to Shaw* that readers of his encyclopedia entry would want to know about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)