Talk:W. Somerset Maugham: Difference between revisions

	W. Somerset Maugham is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia’s Main Page as Today’s featured article on January 25, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

this is admittedly a minor issue, but i think all 25 instances of the minus sign (‘−’) currently in the article were meant to be en dashes (‘–’). dying (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat fixed a bunch of them but there are 17 more. I can easily edit them but they are used as in (space)(dash)(space) and some of the dashes are minus while others are en dash. What is wanted? I would normally use unspaced em dash but don’t want to change the style without consensus. So, should it be unspaced em dash of spaced en dash? Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, thanks for running that script. interestingly, it caught two spaced hyphen-minuses (” – “) in an image’s alt text that i missed, though it also appears to have ignored all spaced minus signs (” − “), perhaps by design.Johnuniq, i am guessing that the minus signs should be replaced with en dashes because (1) all the other earlier uses of the minus sign were found in ranges, which the mos states should be punctuated with en dashes; (2) had the original intention been to use an unspaced em dash, i assume that the minus signs would not have been spaced; and (3) there are a number of spaced en dashes currently in the article, and no em dashes, spaced or unspaced. dying (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I’ve done that. There is a MOS suggestion somewhere about using a template to no-wrap the space before the dash but that uglifies the wikitext so I just used plain en dashes. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Johnuniq. dying (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m slightly bothered by this. Most of the minus signs were added by me in the belief that they were en-dashes. Is it my keyboard that puts in minuses rather than en-dashes? Like this – for instance? How can I check? I don’t want to do anything that will adversely affect screen-readers. Does my keyboard render em-dashes correctly—e.g. here? Grateful for advice. Tim riley talk 09:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did once see mention of a website that can tell you exactly what the characters are that you paste into it (at WP:VPT) but I did not pay attention because I use a text editor that can do that. Your comment has the correct dashes: “this – for” has an en dash and “correctly—e.g.” has an em dash. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a relief – thank you. Tim riley talk 10:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

given the number of low-res and poor quality images which cannot be loaded into Wikimedia Commons on this page it seem a shame to remove this portrait of him that is of good quality by a commercial photographer and in Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SLNSW_FL19828781.jpg Tim riley Eothan (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2024

A good picture, but we’ve got one of him a few years earlier, and the later one doesn’t tell the reader anything much or add to the narrative. It would be a pity to lose the picture of Syrie to make room for the additional one of Maugham, and there isn’t comfortable room for two at this point. If you are keen to include it, the new picture would sit comfortably in the Reputation section, breaking up rather a slab of text. Tim riley talk 08:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before it goes in, Eothan, can I ask where and when it was first published? Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really concerned so add it if you feel it works – just felt it would enhance the article. It is part of the Harold Cazneaux negative collection in the State Library of NSW. As it almost certainly taken on the 1920 visit it is in the Public Domain in Australia as pre 1955. Also Cazneaux died in 1953 so is in the Public Domain also with 70+ years license. In USA PD-1996 applies. cheers. Eothan (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve changed the licence at commons, but can I check that it fulfils the following criteria:

• it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days),
• it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,
• it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).

Given the US licencing requirements (which have to be met to be on Commons), just being PD in Australia isn’t enough. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just repeating myself, but the Maugham was not bisexual and it’s inaccurate (and borderline offensive to both gay men and bisexuals) to categorize him as such due to his heterosexual marriage and youthful relationships with women. This is not original research or speculation, but rather making the categories more accurate to the article itself, which has direct quotes from relatives (and the man himself) calling Maugham homosexual as well someone who only had relationships with women under social pressures and fear. Maugham called these relationships his life’s great regret. 67.173.187.19 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to describe an anonymous editor’s attempted contributions as nonsense, but if you take the trouble to read the article you will see that WSM said “I tried to persuade myself that I was three-quarters normal and that only a quarter of me was queer – whereas really it was the other way round”. Whatever the arithmetic either way, that is bisexuality beyond question. Tim riley talk 17:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Nevertheless he had a wish to marry, which he later greatly regretted. Looking back, he described his early attempts to be heterosexual as the greatest mistake in his life.” Does not sound like bisexuality to me. Most gay men and women are not gold star, 100% homosexual. He did not pursue relationships with women following his failed marriage. 67.173.187.19 (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just remove the bi/gay category arguments and place him under the general LGBTQ umbrella. Lulu9091 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, I think. I don’t imagine most readers look at categories (though I have no statistics to confirm that) and the one-size-fits-all queer category will do admirably, me judice. Tim riley talk 18:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queer is a slur towards gay and bisexual men and women. ~2025-32012-64 (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I heard for decades W.S. Maugham was bisexual and his nephew outed him, and various biographies have mentioned this. Maugham himself said he was bisexual.

https://variety.com/2006/legit/markets-festivals/the-constant-wife-2-1200517085/ ~2025-32012-64 (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youthful? He was in his 30s-50s when he married and had children. ~2025-32012-64 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster seems to love to go around wiki claiming famous bisexual men were really gay/homosexual this is bisexual erasure and biphobia/homophobia. ~2025-32012-64 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The change the anonymous editor attempted to make was shocking and dishonest. In Wikipedia we do not falsify quotations. Nor do we capriciously delete cited statements such as that deleted by the offending IP until restored by Prothe1st, to whom thanks are due. If there is any further repetition of this IP’s shameful behaviour I shall ask an admin to block his/her access. Tim riley talk 08:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]