Talk:Joseph Conrad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rfc: Joseph Conrad's Nationality

The consensus is that Joseph Conrad's nationality should include his Polish and British background, but there is no consensus on the exact wording. The article currently says he is a "Polish-British writer". Other suggested wordings were "British writer of Polish origin" and "British writer born in (?? region or country??) into a Polish (speaking?) family". If there is still a dispute about which wording should be used, then a new discussion should be opened discussing the different suggested wordings.

Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How should this article describe Conrad's nationality? I don't just mean in the info box.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as is because Conrad's nationality is multi-faceted and current explanation gives distinction between Conrad's self-identification and his national citizenship. The article as is seems very clear - unless I'm completely missing something. Tale.Spin (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: How can you keep it as is, Tale.Spin when it keeps changing? There is currently an edit war over the first sentence: Conrad "was a Polish [or Polish-British] writer regarded as one of the greatest novelists to write in the English language". With regard to "self-identification", Conrad (as quoted in the discussion above) said: "I am more British than you are. You are only British because you could not help it." The article as a whole is slanted to the "facet" of his Polish nationality. The lead states: "Conrad drew on his native Poland's national experiences". As far as I am aware, none of Conrad's stories were set in Poland or featured Polish characters. Regarding his birthplace, the article says: "Joseph Conrad was born on 3 December 1857 in Berdychiv, in a part of Ukraine that had belonged to the Kingdom of Poland before 1793 and was at the time of his birth under Russian rule." This appears to be an attempt to imply that Conrad was born in Poland, and also a scarcely relevant excursion into Polish history. Polish history of centuries past is referred to throughout the article. It's not that Conrad wasn't Polish. It's just that the current article gives an entirely misleading impression to the general reader who knows nothing about Conrad. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about Conrad the British writer, not a Polish nationalist essay.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Response to Comment: Those are seemingly good points Jack Upland. Please explain them in the RfC --- the current question is really vague. Also please offer at least one alternative to describing Conrad's nationality that you think is worthy replacement. Tale.Spin (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I was attempting to follow the RfC guideline, which is to be brief and neutral. I think people can read my comment if they want to see my point of view. With regard to the first sentence, I think "Polish-British writer" or "British writer of Polish origin" would be better than simply "Polish writer" which is highly misleading. It is tempting to say "Polish-born British writer", but he wasn't actually born in Poland. It would be possible to argue that he should be described as simply "British" because he lived most of his life in the British Empire, and had a career in the British merchant navy and as a writer of English literature, but I wouldn't go that far.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not simply Polish as it is misleading. I believe guidelines suggest citizenship when the person came to prominence, which would be British, though British alone would also be misleading and uninformative. Hitchcock I believe is described as an English-born American (though he was already prominent in UK film, before becoming US), T S Eliot the reverse, an unmentionable dictator is described as being "born into a German-speaking Austrian family", AFTER being described as 'German'. We do also allow for a certain self-identification, Seamus Heaney would probably have been described as Irish, even before he took citizenship, despite holding a UK passport for much of his life, Irish in the sense 'from the island'. I suggest you say "British writer born in (?? region or country??) into a Polish (speaking?) family", possibly footnoting any unwieldy complexities. "British writer of Polish origin" is also acceptable as the simplest, clearest suggestion above. Pincrete (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Polish-British. Pincrete makes some very good points, but I think Conrad's sense of Polishness was so strong that Polish has to come first. Might even consider "Polish writer who settled in England and became a British citizen." But then this completely misses the Russian connection: "Yet, in spite of having become a subject of Queen Victoria, Conrad had not ceased to be a subject of Tsar Alexander III. Difficult to pin down this rover. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment, I don't object to M.123's 'expanded version', but 'hybrids' are always confusing unless there use is well established, (an Italian-American is probably neither an Italian citizen, nor someone whose mother was Italian, father US, whereas British Asian, usually means a UK citizen, whose ancestry is Asian). If being Polish was central to Conrad, there are other ways to say this without it becoming confused with citizenship. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Although I think most people don't have such a well-developed sense of the distinction between nationality and citizenship as does Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Nor between a writer who IS whatever, and one who writes in the whatever language. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• What are the options? An WP:RFC should provide options rather than an open-ended question. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the options regarding the first sentence are: Polish writer, Polish-British writer, or British writer of Polish origin.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The memorial was allegedly found

http://www.vologda.aif.ru/society/pamyatnik_dzhozefu_konradu_v_vologde_nashelsya Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was two weeks ago. When/if they put it back, we can update the wiki article. but they keep changing their story so I'm not sure this story is 100% accurate. Softlavender (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

See related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Is_the_disapperance_of_Joseph_Conrad.27s_memorial_in_Vologda_notable.3F. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well if the monument is still not there, we might want to add this explanation [1], if that is a reliable source. Softlavender (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward Said

I'm astonished that there is not even a word about Edward Said's commentary on Conrad in this article. From his first book, Joseph Conrad and the Fiction of Autobiography, to the end of his life, Said never ceased to engage with Conrad's writings, offering a far more nuanced view than Achebe, who is discussed at length. Does anyone feel competent to add a section on this?

Done. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Poland

There is no doubt that Conrad was ethnically Polish - as discussed above. However, the claim, made in that debate, that he was born and grew up in Poland is surely false. His birthplace, Berdychiv/Berdyczów, is clearly part of Ukraine, and in fact not far from Kiev. However, the article describes his birthplace as:

Berdyczów, in Podolia, a part of modern Ukraine that had belonged to the Kingdom of Poland before the 1793 Second Partition of Poland.

Berdychiv is situated in the Zhytomyr Oblast (province), 44 km from the city of Zhytomyr. In the interests of simplicity, I have excerpted this history of Zhytomyr from its article:

Zhytomyr was one of the prominent cities of Kievan Rus'... In 1320 Zhytomyr was captured by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania... After the Union of Lublin (1569) the city was incorporated into the Crown of the Polish Kingdom and in 1667, following the Treaty of Andrusovo, it became the capital of the Kiev Voivodeship. In the Second Partition of Poland in 1793 it passed to Imperial Russia and became the capital of the Volhynian Governorate.

It should be noted that the "Kingdom of Poland" in the relevant period was actually the "Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania", commonly known as the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, with Berdychiv notionally belonging to Lithuania. Hence, it is misleading to imply Berdychiv was historically Polish territory. In Conrad's time, Berdychiv was majority Jewish, and the surrounding countryside was majority Ukrainian. It was then part of the Russian Empire, as it had been since 1793. So why call it by its Polish name? In addition, it does not appear that Berdychiv is in Podolia. After being born, Conrad lived in various places in the Russian and Austrian Empires, some of which are now in Poland, and went to France when he was 16, but that doesn't really matter as the article does not currently say he grew up in Poland. However, the article does say he "drew on his native Poland's national experiences". Firstly, I think it's hard to say he was native to Poland. Secondly, how did he draw on these experiences? Are any of his stories set in Poland? Well, Under Western Eyes deals with Russia, I guess. And The Secret Agent, perhaps... I will amend the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"It should be noted that the "Kingdom of Poland" in the relevant period was actually the "Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania", commonly known as the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, with Berdychiv notionally belonging to Lithuania." - I think you are mistaken here. Volhynia, Podolia, Bratslav, and Kiev were ceded to Poland under the terms of the Lublin Union in 1569. Since then Berdichiv/Berdyczów (in Kiev voivodship) had been part of the Polish Kingdom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1997, vol. 2, p. 120.:

Berdychiv, Russian berdichev, or berdicev, city, Zhytomyr oblasl (province), northwestern Ukraine. Founded in 1482 as a Lithuanian fortress, Berdychiv was Polish from 1569 until 1793. Hedviberit (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right there.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well The Secret Agent is certainly rather vauge about the actual countries involved. Although it is set in London (Soho in fact), the agent Verloc has been employed "by an unnamed embassy", etc, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think he does show his Eastern European background in some of his stories, in contrast to the other writers in English at the time. Nostromo is another example. Not because it has anything to do with Eastern Europe, but because it deals with revolution and tyranny, which were not normal subjects in English literature of the period. Also, I think his writings always have an international flavour, which reflects his life. But not specifically Poland.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

PS At the risk of re-running the previous debate, it doesn't seem right to say that he is a "Polish author who wrote in English after settling in England". Firstly, it sounds like he wrote in Polish before settling in England. Secondly, he began writing Almayer's Folly before he was living in England on a permanent basis. He wrote in English because he had joined the British merchant navy. But I'm not sure how to amend the text. Relatedly, it is significant that in the quotation given in "note 1" he describes himself as a Pole from the Ukraine.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In the "Early years" section, paragraph 2, you have modified a sentence to read: "Though the vast majority of the surrounding area's inhabitants were Ukrainians, and the vast majority of the population of Berdychiv was Jewish, the land was almost completely owned by the Polish szlachta (nobility) from which Conrad had descended." This could be understood to mean that Conrad himself was not a member of the Polish nobility (the szlachta). In fact, he was acutely aware of his membership in that 10% of the Polish people; and at the end of his life he declined a British knighthood on the ground that he already possessed an ancient hereditary Polish coat-of-arms (with which he emblazoned the covers of a multi-volume collected edition of his writings).

His "Polish heritage" includes, prominently, a profound, pervasive awareness of his country's dismemberment by three neighboring empires, and of the societal weaknesses that had made his country vulnerable vis-a-vis more autocratic polities. Many other Polish writers of the day shared a similar preoccupation with politics and statecraft, including his favorite Polish novelist, Bolesław Prus, author of the political historical novel, Pharaoh. Nihil novi (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd also have to disagree rather strongly with the change to "Conrad drew on his Polish heritage", as that term is far too bland, and somewhat misleading in this context (particularly to anyone ignorant of Polish history). As someone involved in heritage issues, I find that most people seem to associate the term "heritage" with the preservation of historic buildings; other people might associate it with their own familial or ethnic cuisine. In both these contexts the word can have connotations of nostalgia, of seeking comfort and identity by looking backwards to a lost world, often through rose-tinted glasses. One reason I myself have only been able to read a few of Conrad's novels is that I find them so unsettling - the very opposite of nostalgia - Conrad's perspective and "starkly lucid view of the human condition" are a product of the socio-political conditions of his milieu and family background, and his lived experience as a voluntary exile. The original wording - "Conrad drew on his native Poland's national experiences" - might not be literally correct, in the sense that he didn't write historical novels based in Poland, but it is quite apt in how those "national experiences" shaped his outlook (Weltanshauung). Bahudhara (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobleman: Conrad was not a nobleman in the sense that he did not have an estate, but he had a noble background. Wikipedia describes his father as a "impoverished nobleman". He seems to be a member of the intelligentsia to me. What is the basis for saying his noble family is why Conrad declined the knighthood? It seems to come from Najder, who said:

I suppose that a sufficient reason was his consciousness of coming from an old noble family; Conrad may have felt that accepting a new title would look like a renunciation of that ancient heritage. (p 570)

Najder goes on to say that Conrad might have been "averse to public honours in general" and had declined honorary degrees also. It is only a supposition on Najder's part. Stape, for example, doesn't say that.

Heritage: If the word offends, take it out. (But see the Najder quote above!) The problem with the previous wording was that it wasn't exactly his "native" Poland, and, yes, it is misleading to say he drew on the "national experiences". What is the source for this statement?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Membership in the Polish nobility (szlachta) did not depend on possession of an estate, but on membership in a coat-of-arms. Notoriously, many impecunious Polish nobles differed from peasants only in possessing a hereditary coat-of-arms.

There was no conflict in Poland between being a noble and being a member of the intelligentsia. Many nobles became inteligenci, sometimes after they had squandered away their estates or had had them confiscated by partitioning powers. Nihil novi (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the influence of Polish "national experiences" on Conrad: "Conrad was passionately concerned with politics. [I]t is confirmed by several of his works, starting with Almayer's Folly.... Nostromo revealed his concern with these matters more fully; it was, of course, a concern quite natural for someone from a country where politics was a matter not only of everyday existence but also of life and death. Moreover, Conrad himself came from a social class that claimed exclusive responsibility for state affairs, and from a very politically active family. Norman Douglas sums it up: 'Conrad was first and foremost a Pole and like many Poles a politician and moralist malgré lui [French: "in spite of himself"]. These are his fundamentals.' [What made] Conrad see political problems in terms of a continuous struggle between law and violence, anarchy and order, freedom and autocracy, material interests and the noble idealism of individuals... was Conrad's historical awareness. His Polish experience endowed him with the perception, exceptional in the Western European literature of his time, of how winding and constantly changing were the front lines in these struggles." Zdzisław Najder, Joseph Conrad: A Life, translated by Halina Najder, Rochester, New York, Camden House, 2007, ISBN 1-57113-347-X, p. 352. Nihil novi (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about the wording regarding the nobility, but the previous wording about national experiences is very misleading. We are not talking about what formed his outlook on life, but what he "drew on" in writing fiction. I don't think any of his major works even mention Poland.

With regard to his nationality, here are some Conrad quotes from John Stape's book, Several Lives:

• "When speaking, writing or thinking in English the word Home always means for me the hospitable shores of Great Britain." (p 48)
• Writing to a friend: "I am more British than you are. You are only British because you could not help it." (p 48)
• With regard to his tie to Britain: "it was dear to me not as an inheritance, but as an acquisition, as a conquest in the sense in which a woman is conquered--by love, which is a sort of surrender." (p 164) (From "Poland Revisited").
• His comment that he didn't want to be seen as "a sort of freak, a bloody amazing furriner writing in English" (p 164)

The opening sentence of this article ("a Polish author...") is misleading and has no consensus to support it.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

For perspective, I'll quote my authority, Conrad's chronicler, Najder (2007): In 1886, in a letter to his Polish friend Joseph Spiridion, according to Najder (pp. 104-5), Conrad "was left with a painful sense of the hopelessness of the Polish problem and an acceptance of England as a possible place of refuge. Possibly his statements were meant to harmonize to some degree with the opinions or attitudes of the addressee; he did this quite often in his letters." Nihil novi (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The first quote I gave was a letter to Spiridion in 1885. Conrad seems to have been genuinely (and understandably) upset by the suggestion that he wasn't British (Stape, pp 163-4). Authors (such as Najder, who is obviously eager to accentuate Conrad as a Pole) seem to pick evidence that will "harmonize" with their own opinions. I think it is obvious that Conrad had a dual national identity, and the article should reflect that. (In fact, whatever he thought at various times, the strongest influence on Conrad seems to have been the experience of being an outsider. Most of his major characters are migrants or expatriates.)--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The sentence about Berdychiv that I originally took issue with has now been restored. Firstly, the article on Podolia does not list Berdychiv as one of its towns. Secondly, Conrad himself called the area Ukraine - both in the letter referred to in note 1 and in A Personal Account. Thirdly, in an article like this I don't think we need to know that Berdychiv was in the Kingdom of Poland before Conrad's parents were born. In addition, further details about his family have been added in. His father already has an article of his own. In general, information relating to Poland is being given undue weight. For example, there are five paragraphs about Conrad's trip to Poland in 1914.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"The sentence about Berdychiv that I originally took issue with has now been restored. Firstly, the article on Podolia does not list Berdychiv as one of its towns"

The list of the towns is unreferenced. Here is the full quote from Zins : The future great English writer was born of patriotic Polish gentry on December 3, 1857 at Berdyczow (Berdichev) in Podolia in the eastern part of old Polish monarchy, which was incorporated into the Russian Empire during the Second Partition of Poland in 1793. In Podolia like in two other formerly Polish provinces, Volhynia and Kiev, the vast majority of the population were Ukrainians, but the Polish gentry owned nearly half of manorial land there. In Podolia, for instance, there were according to 1897 surveys, which tended to lower the real Polish percentage, 75. 1 percent Ukrainians, 12.3 Jews and 8.8. Poles who owned 41 percent of manorial land. Landowning gentry and magnates  apart, the Poles were frequently also administrators, even of Russian estates, and tenants. They constituted a sizable proportion of the lawyers, doctors, and industrialists. More than half of intelligentsia in those eastern parts of the old Polish Kingdom was Polish in the time of Conrad's early life. (Henryk Zins, Joseph Conrad and Africa, Kenya Literature Bureau, 1982, p. 12.)

"Secondly, Conrad himself called the area Ukraine - both in the letter referred to in note 1 and in A Personal Account." - Ukraine as a region, not as a country. But I'm not against changing: "a part of modern Ukraine" to "a part of Ukraine".

"Thirdly, in an article like this I don't think we need to know that Berdychiv was in the Kingdom of Poland before Conrad's parents were born." - How else will reader understand Conrad's family background - why his father fought for the restoration of pre-partition borders of Poland and why most of the land was owned by the Polish nobility in the Russian Empire, despite the fact that most of the population in the area was Ukrainian? And what was Polish family doing in Ukraine? You yourself made a mistake thinking that the town was previously Lithuanian and not Polish.

"In addition, further details about his family have been added in. His father already has an article of his own."

It's only one sentence about him in the body of the article, and it clarifies this claim: "Because of the father's attempts at farming and his political activism, the family moved repeatedly". It tells us what "kind of political activism" his father engaged in and why he was a member of anti-Russian resistance. There is also a link between: "Though the vast majority of the surrounding area's inhabitants were Ukrainians,... almost all the countryside was owned by the Polish szlachta", the fact that his father was a member of the faction that advocated land reform and the abolition of serfdom, and Conrad's attitude towards slavery.

To understand Conrad, you need to know details about his family and these are inseparable from Polish history. As far as I know, all his biographies have a chapter about his Polish childhood/Polish background or his Polish background is covered extensively. Meyers:

• Conrad was significantly influenced by his father's works... he repeated the arguments of Apollo's polemic "Poland and Muscovy" in his own essay "Autocracy and War". Though Apollo died when Conrad was only eleven years old, they established an intense, even harrowing relationship, and the father had the profoundest impact on the son. (Jeffrey Meyers, Joseph Conrad: a Biography, Cooper Square Press, 2001, p. 8.)

• Conrad's refusal to follow his father's exhortation and example, and his voluntary exile from Poland in 1874, were a source of lifelong guilt. (Jeffrey Meyers, Joseph Conrad: a Biography, Cooper Square Press, 2001, p. 11.) - This clearly influenced his perception of himself as an eternal outsider.

• Conrad writing to his Russophile friend Edward Garnett and attempting, as always, to distinguish Poles from other Slavs, contrasted Poland's "delirium of the brave" with Britan's confident expectation of victory: "you seem to forget I am a Pole, You forget that we have been used to go to battle without illusions. It's you Britishers that 'go in to win' only. We have been 'going in' these last hundred years repeatedly, to be knocked on the head only". (Jeffrey Meyers, Joseph Conrad: a Biography, Cooper Square Press, 2001, p. 18.) -

Here he refers to the Polish uprisings. Polish history was his point of reference and influenced his perception, from Zins:

Conrad made English literature more mature and reflective because he called attention to the sheer horror of political realities overlooked by English citizens and politicians. The case of Poland, his oppressed homeland, was one such issue. The colonial exploitation of Africans was another. His condemnation of imperialism and colonialism, combined with sympathy for its persecuted and suffering victims, was drawn from his Polish background, his own personal sufferings, and the experience of a persecuted people living under foreign occupation. Personal memories created in him a great sensitivity for human degradation and a sense of moral responsibility. (H.S. Zins, "Joseph Conrad and British critics of colonialism, Pula, Vol. 12, nos. 1&2, 1998, p. 63.) Hedviberit (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hedviberit, you have articulated beautifully the points that Bahudhara and I have also been trying to make. As Bahudhara wrote on 16 July 2015, "The original wording - 'Conrad drew on his native Poland's national experiences' - might not be literally correct, in the sense that he didn't write historical novels based in Poland, but it is quite apt in how those 'national experiences' shaped his outlook (Weltanshauung)."

Could you add Zins, with full bibliographical information, to the article's references? If this source has a Polish title, give that and I'll be glad to try rendering it into English. Nihil novi (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the two Zins items to the "Secondary sources". (I'm finding that when I click on the last item in that section—now a Zins source—it temporarily disappears. I've never seen such a thing. I tried reversing the two Zins items.)

Please consider adding citations from the very insightful Zins sources to the article. Nihil novi (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I note the edit-warring about Conrad's nationality is continuing. I still think this article gives undue weight to his Polish background, but it is certainly better than it was.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that the misleading references to Poland persist.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism in the article

The section 2.2 'Language' had a poorly written conversational-style question: "Why then did he choose to write his books in, effectively, his third language?". This appeared to be a quote from another text and it can be google'd to an edition of the Conrad novella "The heart of darkness" which has an editorial section 'About the author' where a lot of the Wikipedia text is lifted directly from. Several other sections of the Wikipedia entry have also been lifted directly from this book, an e-book of which is archived here: Google books extract showing where this Wiki entry was copied directly from 'About the author' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew ranfurly (talk • contribs) 17:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Andrew ranfurly (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The material in question was added to the article here on September 20, 2012 in a slightly different form. It changed organically over time. The "book" in question appears to have simply copied from here (the organically changed text), without the proper attribution. This is a common scam for self-publishers; take public domain works and copy an "introduction". Kuru (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The 'Early life' section of this wiki entry was also taken directly from another 'About the author' chapter in an edition of Conrad's book Nostromo: Nostromo e-book: 'About the author' section Andrew ranfurly (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

At the end of that section in the "book", it credits "(source: wikiperdia.org)" [sic]. At least they tried. Kuru (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As you see above, under "Master prose stylist", Macmillan publishers have also copied this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Edward Said section needs to be greatly trimmed or paraphrased

The two direct quotations from the Edward Said book are 940 words long, and constitute copyright violation and WP:UNDUE. The first, 600-word section is about Conrad's letters and therefore isn't germane at all and should probably be removed altogether. The second, 340-word section praises Conrad so it doesn't belong in the "Criticism" section -- it should go in some other section such as a "Critical Reception" section. I'm not sure how germane it is to have 340 words from one sole author when we should be summarizing views from variety of literary critics, so it might be advisable to either trim it or summarize it. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should be summarised.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the irrelevant material about his personal letters, and I'm moving the other quotation here till it can be more appropriately placed (it should not be in the "Criticism" section) and summarized:

Conrad's achievement is that he ordered the chaos of his existence into a highly patterned art that accurately reflected and controlled the realities with which it dealt. His experience, as both man and writer, is unique in English literature: no expatriation was as complete or as complex as his, no literary production as profoundly strange and creative. Because he, like so many of his characters, lived life at the extreme, he was more acutely conscious of community even if, most of the time, his was a negative or critical view. He dramatized the plight of man divorced from and yet still incriminated by the past, the man committed to but paralyzed by society. Driven back on his individuality, he accepted its burdens and its uncompromisingly pessimistic vision of reality. His unceasing efforts to clarify what was obscure, terrible, and frighteningly compelling within himself were complemented, in 1914, by a comparable effort on the European stage. The Western powers had finally turned their attention to what Conrad would have called the lurking enemy within. This public incarnation of his private struggles left him with the opportunity to memorialize his, and England's, energies; this he did in The Shadow Line, a tale that celebrated, intimately and significantly, a belated reconciliation and calm. After that, until his death in 1924, Conrad returned in his fiction to episodes out of his past, now to complete stories he had once begun, now to idealize, almost always to elegize. The self-tormented characters undergoing radical experiences whose chronicler he had been were replaced either by strong old men like Peyrol in The Rover, or troubled young people like Rita and George in The Arrow of Gold; young or old, Conrad allows them final redemption, like a benign administrator, a Kurtz turned saint, who transmutes suffering into stillness and peace. His own life after The Shadow Line brought him more fame but little real rest or security: it is a characteristic Conradian irony that he could not finally transmute all his own suffering into an earned peace.

References

-- Softlavender (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I addressed this talk-section's concerns on 2 October 2016. The above material can, I think, now be deleted. Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk-page material does not get deleted. It will be archived by bot in one year, or someone can change the archiving to make it faster, or someone can one-click archive this thread. I suggest leaving for at least a month in case anyone has any more to say about it. Softlavender (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Master prose stylist"

I see that his current publisher Macmillan says this about him (emphasis added): "Joseph Conrad was a master prose stylist, widely regarded as one of the greatest English-language novelists. Writing in the heyday of the British Empire, Conrad drew upon his experiences in the French and later the British Merchant Navy to create short stories and novels that reflect aspects of a worldwide empire while also plumbing the depths of the human soul.": [2]. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

What are the chances they copied us? They aren't an RS of course. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not an RS, but certainly a confirmation. I think it's unquestioned that Conrad was a master prose stylist, and in the English language. I think Martin is just trying to head off the persistent IP vandal. Softlavender (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

What is "RS"? "Reliable source"?

What is "the persistent IP vandal"?

It would facilitate communication to use more transparent expressions.

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Great to see you have WP:CHEAT on your User page! After 92,377 edits one tends to start using shortcuts. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The same claim is made in the lead section of Joseph Conrad's career at sea, where it's supported by a note. Let's hope that article won't also require protection soon? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth that quote from Macmillan is a copy of an earlier version of the lead here.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Does that make it in some way forever unusable? Maybe they think it's a true and fair appraisal? What a shock. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, regarding IP 82's current edits around the "master prose stylist" wording, is it possible to discuss the relative merits of the rendering? I certainly don't condone the edit warring, hence why I have semi'd the article, but I do feel that at the core of matter there is the possibility for a compromise solution. The words "master prose stylist" currently appear to be presented in Wikipedia's voice in the lead, but potentially they could be attributed to the source of the opinion, for instance: "Though he did not speak English fluently until he was in his twenties, Conrad was considered by authors such as Kipling as a master prose stylist who brought a non-English sensibility into English literature.". Would something like that work/resolve the issue? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Having thought about it for a while, I don't think the "master prose stylist" phrase is appropriate. Who said it? Some Wikipedia editor. Macmillan has been cited, but that's a mirror site. In fact, many people have criticised Conrad's style. In 1936 George Orwell commented that, "At present Conrad is out of fashion, ostensibly because of his florid style and redundant adjectives" (though he didn't agree). In 1924 Ernest Hemingway said, "It is agreed by most of the people I know that Conrad is a bad writer" (though he also didn't agree). John Stape in his biography (p 271) said, "His style...can fall into mere brittle mannerism...or at times flap about as his grasp on grammatical niceties and idiom relaxes". In 1896, Conrad himself said, "My style may be atrocious — but it produces its effect". Conrad's command of English was never perfect, and his writing style was always slightly strange. We've already said he was a great writer. Talking of prose style, another problem with the sentence in question is that the final clause doesn't fit logically with the first one. "Though he did not speak English fluently until he was in his twenties, he was a master prose stylist" — that works. "Though he did not speak English fluently until he was in his twenties, he brought a non-English sensibility into English literature" — that doesn't work.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"His command of English was never perfect" -- according to whom? Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

According to John Stape, when Conrad visited the Doubleday printing plant in the USA, "they found his accent impenetrable, and the secretaries assigned to take down his every word in shorthand abandoned the task in despair" (p 250). Stape also comments on his "foreign accent and courtly manner, his odd turns of phrase and outright grammatical errors" (p 164). Also, see Stape's commments quoted previously.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Accent is completely immaterial. Spoken language is as well, for writers -- many writers express themselves poorly in speech but very eloquently in writing -- speaking off-the-cuff is quite a different skill than organizing words on the page. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Stape's comment about style relates to his writing.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• To answer the question, there are a lot of substantiations for Conrad was a master prose stylist. Here are some web and GoogleBooks: [3], [4] (ignore the wiki mirrors). Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see strong support for "master prose stylist". R Curle: "Unfortunately that is quite sufficient to prevent some from admitting that he is a stylist at all". New Cambridge Companion to Joseph Conrad: "it is nevertheless true that he never quite achieved the kind of inconspicuous competence that would make his written English absolutely indistinguishable from that of native speakers. Tell-tale slips — odd choices of vocabulary or eccentricities of word order..." etc. It's obvious that many people have criticised his style. I think a better description is a "writer's writer" (Stape, p 271). People like Hemingway and Orwell, as I quoted above, defended him from his detractors.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

My sense is that you are cherry-picking sources (e.g., obviously cherry-picking Curle). In my opinion there are hundreds of substantiations there; set your results to 100 per page and you can see them better. One other thing I would mention is that Conrad varied his style -- sometimes florid and involved, sometimes atmospheric, sometimes eloquent and elegant, and sometimes simple; depending I suppose on his aim or content. He was not therefore like some writers (Henry James etc.?) in whom the importance of style, or the maintenance of a specific style, seemed to trump the importance of content or meaning. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am cherry-picking, in the sense that I am highlighting the criticisms of Conrad's style, but that is only for the purposes of argument. I am not saying that Conrad wasn't a great writer. He's one of my favourite writers. But there is controversy about his style. That's the problem with the phrase "master prose stylist". It suggests his style is universally acclaimed, or that he was known for his style like Henry James.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

So, why not say: "Though he did not speak English fluently until he was in his twenties, and though he may or may not have been a master prose stylist (opinions have varied), he is generally regarded as a great writer who brought a non-English sensibility into English literature.[note 1]"? Nihil novi (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why mention "master prose stylist" in that sentence?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I could support the sentence without "master prose stylist" if it isn't actually attributable to anyone. I would probably suggest, though, tempering "great" to "good", but happy either way if there is consensus. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ewa Bobrowska

Joseph Conrad's mother's given name has been changed in our article from Ewa to Evelina.

According to Zdzisław Najder (Joseph Conrad: A Life, Rochester, Camden House, 2005, p. 6), her given name was Ewa, but when Conrad's father, Apollo Korzeniowski, first met her, "probably in 1847... Ewelina [was] the fashionable version of the name Ewa".

In other words, her name was not "Ewelina"—and certainly not "Evelina", spelled English-fashion with a v—but "Ewa".

This is not the first example of name confusion in Conrad's family history. His complete name has sometimes been given in the incorrect order: "Józef Konrad Teodor Korzeniowski".

And, of course, among family and friends he was always known not as "Józef" but as "Konrad".

I am reverting Conrad's mother's name to the correct "Ewa".

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Conrad. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210175324/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/jconrad.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/jconrad.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302095028/http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/imperial/africa/Conrad-readings.htm to http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/imperial/africa/Conrad-readings.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2017

Under CINEMA, please add the following entry:

Secret Sharer (2014), inspired by "The Secret Sharer", directed by Peter Fudakowski

Peter Fudakowski (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"enigmatic" does not describe Kurtz's last words

The word "enigmatic" does not describe Kurtz's very last words in "Heart of Darkness" (though it might properly describe some of his rantings as he is nearing death). On the contrary, Kurtz's gift of eloquence is said (by the story's narrator, the witness of Kurtz's final words) to have found its ultimate--even triumphant (in spite of being self-condemnatory)--expression in its brilliantly clear summing up of the horrors of the existence which he, Kurtz, has embraced. It seems that Conrad is at pains to show the clarity of this expression, i.e., that it is anything but enigmatic, as in the narrator's words, referring to Kurtz's last words: "He had something to say." "He said it." 2602:306:80F6:FA0:B4F7:9794:D5EE:FC03 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have substituted the word "iconic". Perhaps you can suggest a better expression for the passage. Nihil novi (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I question whether we should use any uncited adjective or descriptor. (Also, doesn't he say the word twice? I can't remember.) Softlavender (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Nihil novi (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Bloat

Nihil novi, you just added 7,000 bytes of text, without a single edit summary, to an already massive (148,000-byte) and meandering article. I have just now trimmed a lot of blatant editorialization, unattributed quotes, and an unnecessary quote from Conrad. Please in the future (A) leave a clear and thorough edit summary for each and every edit, and (B) please exercise restraint and discretion. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

These two quotes seem reasonable, although not the commentary surrounding them:

"Those who read me," he wrote in the preface to A Personal Record, "know my conviction that the world, the temporal world, rests on a few very simple ideas; so simple that they must be as old as the hills. It rests, notably, among others, on the idea of Fidelity."

"For Conrad fidelity is the barrier man erects against nothingness, against corruption, against the evil that is all about him, insidious, waiting to engulf him, and that in some sense is within him unacknowledged. But what happens when fidelity is submerged, the barrier broken down, and the evil without is acknowledged by the evil within? At his greatest, that is Conrad's theme."

But I assume this has all come from Encyclopedia Britannica. Perhaps that's why it's disliked? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The second quote is unattributed. I have no intrinsic objection to the Conrad quote, other than the fact the article is already at nearly 150,000 bytes, and do we really need another meandering Conrad quote? Maybe trim it to its essence ("Those who read me know my conviction that the world, the temporal world, rests on a few very simple ideas; .... It rests, notably, among others, on the idea of Fidelity.") and also avoid any editorialization in Wikipedia's voice. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was all taken from Encyclopedia Britannica. Perhaps User:Nihil novi could enlighten us? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It was simply a cited quotation with no in-text attribution, which is why I deleted it: [5]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. That "Themes and styles" section is not exactly tiny, is it. Perhaps we ought to invite User:EEng over for one of his usual gentle reappraisals. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the trims to this article's "Themes and style" section. I was about to make the same cuts when my computer connection crashed!

Nihil novi (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

List of authors "influenced by" in lede

There is currently a laundry list of authors "influenced by" Conrad in the lede, not particularly well cited (no quotations from the sources, most citations are from articles or books on Conrad). Firstly, the lede is not a place for such a laundry list, so if anything it should be moved to a "Legacy" section. Second, you'd be hard-pressed to find a 20th-century literary English-language author who was not in some way influenced by Conrad, or read Conrad, or said somewhere that s/he liked Conrad, so I think the laundry list has little utility without direct quotes from the authors themselves (either in text or in the citation). Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The lead lists 19 writers influenced by Conrad. The "Legacy" section lists 22: the 19 that are in the lead, and 3 more. An author writing on Conrad speaks of "dozens" of American writers who have acknowledged Conrad's influence. The list could be deleted from the lead, without loss to the article. Nihil novi (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Done; removed from lede. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joseph Conrad. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140917143910/https://www.australianbookreview.com.au/abr-online/52-may-2011/316-the-death-of-the-writer to https://www.australianbookreview.com.au/abr-online/52-may-2011/316-the-death-of-the-writer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418193302/http://www.dur.ac.uk/postgraduate.english/AndrewPurssellArticle.htm to http://www.dur.ac.uk/postgraduate.english/AndrewPurssellArticle.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050408015241/http://caxton.stockton.edu/hod/achebe to http://caxton.stockton.edu/hod/achebe

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

"he was a master prose stylist" is not a neutral point of view. It's a flagrant violation, in fact, of the policy that requires articles to be written from a neutral point of view. That policy is not negotiable and has no exceptions. To make this sentence comply with the non-negotiable core policy requires the addition of a single word only. The people who are removing this weird and have done so repeatedly for months are either too stupid to comprehend what they are doing, or so arrogant that they don't think they have to obey the policies of the encyclopaedia. Either way, they are nothing more than vandals. As long as they keep vandalising this article, I'll keep fixing it. It would be better for everyone if they stop their idiotic behaviour, now. 218.102.34.81 (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources use this kind of terminology then it's perfectly fine and compliant with NPOV, though perhaps it should be attributed. Volunteer Marek  07:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What unbelievably clueless bullshit. There is no reliable source on whether Joseph Conrad was a master prose stylist. It is a subjective opinion. There are only reliable sources on whether people have said that he is a master prose stylist. That is an objective fact that can be verified. Can't honestly believe someone would genuinely misunderstand that so badly. 218.102.34.81 (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"granted British citizenship"

On a related issue, this is a terrible anachronism, as there was no such thing as "British citizenship" in Conrad's lifetime. The thing to say here would be that he was "naturalized as a British subject". That does also have a bearing on the main disagreement, as no one then saw being a British subject as conferring any particular nationality. In effect, Conrad became a British subject but remained a Pole. Moonraker (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your first point. However, I think you're exaggerating on the second point. Conrad certainly did think himself that he had acquired British nationality. See the following quotes from John Stape's book, Several Lives:

• "When speaking, writing or thinking in English the word Home always means for me the hospitable shores of Great Britain." (p 48)
• Writing to a friend: "I am more British than you are. You are only British because you could not help it." (p 48)
• With regard to his tie to Britain: "it was dear to me not as an inheritance, but as an acquisition, as a conquest in the sense in which a woman is conquered--by love, which is a sort of surrender." (p 164) (From "Poland Revisited").
• His comment that he didn't want to be seen as "a sort of freak, a bloody amazing furriner writing in English" (p 164)

And, as far as I can see, no one has argued that Conrad wasn't Polish.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Nationality

Hi Bahudhara. re your reverting of my recent edit,[6] thanks for drawing my attention to the archived discussion of this matter. All the same that was 2016 and I was trying to clarify, both the term "Polish-British", and the Russian dimension of Conrad's birth. I think that further discussion, of my suggested changes (see below) might be useful.

Joseph Conrad (Polish pronunciation: [ˈjuz̪ɛf ˌkɔn.rad]; born Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski; 3 December 1857 – 3 August 1924), though born a Pole, in what was then Russia, was a British writer and is regarded as one of the greatest novelists to write in the English language. He joined the British merchant marine in 1878, and was granted British citizenship in 1886.

and,

Writing in the heyday of the British Empire, Conrad drew on, among other things, his experience of being born a Pole in the Russian Empire. Rwood128 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC) [I made an error here]Rwood128 (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Conrad was, I would argue, both a Polish and British writer, not merely a British writer who happened to have been "born a Pole". "Polish-British writer" conveys this economically. The reader will discover the full depth of the formulation as he reads the article.

It was not merely the accidental circumstance of his "being born a Pole in the Russian Empire" that informed his historical sense, which in turn helped shape his worldview as reflected in his writings.

I think the current lead serves its purpose adequately.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Rwood128's suggestion is good. (I would only amend it to say "Russian Empire" instead for "Russia" in the first instance.) It seems to find a pathway out of the tangle that has bedevilled us for years. Polish-British is an ugly neologism. It's misleading and incongruous, in that Conrad wasn't born in Poland, did not spend a significant proportion of his life in Poland, and did not write in Polish. As far as I can see, Rwood's proposal is not misleading. It does not diminish Conrad's Polish identity or its role in his writing.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Might the following be better?

Joseph Conrad (Polish pronunciation: [ˈjuz̪ɛf ˌkɔn.rad]; born Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski; 3 December 1857 – 3 August 1924), who is regarded as one of the greatest novelists to write in the English language, was born a Pole, in what was then Russia. Conrad joined the British merchant marine in 1878, and was granted British citizenship in 1886.

Actually that is better, but again I would prefer "Russian Empire" to "Russia".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That's reasonable.

I suggest the second revision might be better as follows: Writing in the heyday of the British Empire, Conrad drew on, among other things, his own national experience of being Polish in the Russian Empire. Rwood128 (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll make the changes, if there is no further discussion. Rwood128 (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a slight rewording?

"Writing in the heyday of the British Empire, Conrad drew on his native Poland's national experiences, and on his own experiences in the French and British merchant navies, to create short stories and novels that reflect aspects of a European-dominated world—including imperialism and colonialism—and that profoundly explore the human psyche."

It was more than just "his own national experience of being Polish in the Russian Empire". When he was born, his part of eastern Poland had been run by Russia for only 64 years, whereas Conrad's historical awareness went back centuries—hence his ability to interpret certain historical processes for the English-speaking world.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What about: "Writing in the heyday of the British Empire, Conrad drew both on his awareness of Polish history and that of a Pole who had lived in the Russian Empire, along with on his own experiences in the French and British merchant navies, to create short stories and novels that reflect aspects of a European-dominated world—including imperialism and colonialism—and that profoundly explore the human psyche."

Also, Is the following an improvement-more appropriate for an encyclopaedia?

"to create short stories and novels that deeply explore aspects of a European-dominated world, including imperialism and colonialism."

Rwood128 (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem with emphasising Poland when talking about his writing is that it suggests that he wrote fiction about Poland. He didn't. The lead should summarise the subject, and this gives an entirely misleading impression.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Though the idea that Conrad's early, Polish life influenced the way he wrote about the British Empire and colonialism is important. The passage in question needs to be re-phrased to make it clear that his point of view is that of a citizen of Britain. Rwood128 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this any good? "Writing as a British citizen in the heyday of the British Empire, Conrad drew both on his awareness of Polish history and that of a Pole who had lived in the Russian Empire, along with on his own experiences in the French and British merchant navies, to create short stories and novels that explore aspects of a European-dominated world, including imperialism and colonialism." Rwood128 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please look into the discussion archives. This has become a monotony. His nationality was already discussed before heavily. Don't make the article more confusing and keep it simple with the flow. His place of birth due to Poland's partition is insignificant in this case and is already mentioned in both infobox and sections of the article. Before making such big changes you should discuss it with other senior users, editors and make a RfC vote. I understand your point of view but other sources mentioned in the article state him as Polish-British or Polish-English. All editors supported the previous "was a Polish-British" writer" in previous discussion. Moreover I was part of that discussion. "Was a Polish-British writer regarded as one of the greatest novelists to write in the English language" is grammatically and symbolically ideal as it represents Conrad's identity, place of residence, occupation, significance of his writings and his subsequent fame. This sentence should not be changed for such an important article and trashed with stacks of even useful information. Such information should be in the body in which it already is. Oliszydlowski, 12:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. As there had been no comment on my revised proposal, I had presumed that it was acceptable. This is a minor copy edit matter. Rwood128 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I now realise that the fact that Conrad was born in the Russian Empire is not mentioned directly in the lede, despite the implication that it had for his attitude to the British Empire and colonialism. I have made a further edit to help clarify matters. Rwood128 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There was an RfC in 2016, started by me, and that was inconclusive. All editors did not support "Polish-British". The reason that this keeps coming up is that (1) the issue is complicated, and (2) the current wording is problematic. If you want this issue to go away, please compromise and co-operate with others who want to improve the article. With regard to the influence of Conrad's Polish identity etc on his fiction, I think that should be attributed to a source, not stated as a fact. As I have said many times, Conrad did not write about Poland in his fiction at all. It is therefore not obvious to say that he drew on this heritage etc. There may be scholars who say that his Polish identity was irrelevant. In any case, it is a matter of opinion and should be attributed to whoever says that. I don't say this because I disagree with this opinion, but simply because we shouldn't mislead the readers. It is a simple fact that Conrad drew on his seafaring experience. He wrote so many stories about the sea. But if you are saying that Conrad's stories drew on his Polish background, you need to make an extended argument, which could be made in a variety of ways. That's someone's opinion, and it's impossible to prove. Even Conrad couldn't prove it.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Jack Upland, re your comment "With regard to the influence of Conrad's Polish identity etc on his fiction, I think that should be attributed to a source, not stated as a fact", I took note 4 and H.S. Zins as backing this up. But is it fully discussed in the body of the article? Rwood128 (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What you are doing now is going against reliable published book sources and internet sources which are valid. Unless you're a historian you morally shouldn't question Conrad's nationality. Do not make these changes to the article unless the discussion is reached or you made a vote per Wikipedia policy. Simple. If reliable sources are given to Conrad's nationality, which they are and they support the 'Polish-British' version, you can only reword given information and not change the given information. As I stated previously the first sentence is an ideal description of Conrad as a persona and writer. Apart from being born in partitioned Poland, Conrad had absolute no connection to Russia or the Russian people and therefore it is not significant to mention. You saying that Conrad's nationality could not be proven is your opinion only. Almost every published source and reference goes against what you said. Therefore your argument is not valid. You also said that it is problematic. Well you discussing it and changing it without a vote is problematic and should not be practiced by Wikipedians. Oliszydlowski, 11:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Conrad was a Pole who wrote in English. Having been born (to Polish parents) in the Russian Empire in no way made him Russian (as some ignorant contemporaries referred to him).

Nihil novi (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. I thought it was a fact that Conrad was born in the Russian Empire. It is also an obvious fact that he wasn't happy about that. There is no attempt to claim him as a Russian, or a Russian writer. Doesn't the lede claims that Conrad's experience of being subject to a foreign imperialist regime, when he was young, was a significant influence on him as a writer? If that isn't true that section of the lede should be deleted. However, it seems a reasonable idea to me, though one that needs to be fully discussed in the body of the article. See my last revisions to the concluding paragraph of the lede. Further clarification is needed. Rwood128 (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The above was composed before I read Nihil novi's comment, supporting the idea that Conrad was born into the Russian Empire. Rwood128 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Conrad, while chafing at Russia's baleful influence on Polish history, was (like his politically active writer father) no less critical of Poles' pre-Partition shortcomings, and this came to color his view of the prospects for the perfectibility of human societies. His sociopolitical views should not be reduced to a simplistic interpretation of a Poland purely a victim of the Russian Empire. Nihil novi (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Nihil novi, many thanks for your helpful clarification. Things are obviously more complex than I had realised. Perhaps I'm obtuse but I still see problems. Firstly no mention of Conrad's birth in the Russian Empire, and secondly the concluding paragraph fails to clearly deal with the complexity. This reader would like more clarity, and Nihil novi, you seem to have the necessary expertise in this matter of history. Rwood128 (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The article's readers will find out perhaps more than they will want to, as they read on past the lead, about the circumstances of Conrad's family and its history. I don't know that there is need to clutter up the lead with it. Is there any specific background information that you consider indispensable to the lead? Nihil novi (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've nothing to add to what I've already said. Your comment about being "born (to Polish parents) in the Russian Empire" might be included, but perhaps some readers might think he was Russian! Rwood128 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Conrad was a subject of the Russian Empire and this was a fact that complicated his early life, and led indirectly to him becoming an English writer. He remained a Russian subject until 1889. That should be referred to in the lead. With regard to the influence of his Polish background on his fiction, if we are quoting Zins' opinion we should say that, "According to Zins, blah, blah blah..." Otherwise we are implying that it is universally acknowledged or obvious. Well, I don't think it is, and we can't say that based on one journal article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Conrad was 10 years old when his father took him from Poland's Russian partition to Austria's. When Conrad's father died, Conrad was placed in the care of his maternal uncle Tadeusz Bobrowski. Since Conrad showed little inclination to study, it was essential that he learn a trade; his uncle saw him as a sailor-cum-businessman who would combine maritime skills with commercial activities, and on 13 October 1874 sent the almost 17-year-old to Marseilles to make a career at sea. Later Conrad switched to the British merchant marine because the British did not require Russian citizens to obtain the Russian government's consent to sail with the British. I don't see much point to delving into such detail in the lead. In principle, Conrad could equally well have spent the first 10 years of his life in Poland's Austrian sector and still have gone to sea. Nihil novi (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the following quotation from the "Politics" section further elucidates the influence of Poland's national experience on Conrad's thinking and writing:

"Conrad [writes Najder] was passionately concerned with politics. [This] is confirmed by several of his works, starting with Almayer's Folly. [...] Nostromo revealed his concern with these matters more fully; it was, of course, a concern quite natural for someone from a country [Poland] where politics was a matter not only of everyday existence but also of life and death. Moreover, Conrad himself came from a social class that claimed exclusive responsibility for state affairs, and from a very politically active family. Norman Douglas sums it up: "Conrad was first and foremost a Pole and like many Poles a politician and moralist malgré lui [French: "in spite of himself"]. These are his fundamentals." [What made] Conrad see political problems in terms of a continuous struggle between law and violence, anarchy and order, freedom and autocracy, material interests and the noble idealism of individuals [...] was Conrad's historical awareness. His Polish experience endowed him with the perception, exceptional in the Western European literature of his time, of how winding and constantly changing were the front lines in these struggles."

I could cite several more passages in the "Joseph Conrad" article that will bear this out.

Again, I don't see the point of delving this deeply into the matter in the lead.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just completing the following in reply to Jack Upland when the above post was made. I hadn't planned on making further comment but I agree that Russia needs to be mentioned in the lede. With regard to the final paragraph, in the body of the article there is second source. However, does the phrase "on his native Poland's national experiences" make sufficiently explicit the complexity of that Nihil novi notes above? See his valuable comment, beginning "Conrad, while chafing at Russia's baleful influence on Polish history". I think that the paragraph should be rewritten, but in a simpler, less wordy form than now, making use of Nihil novi's comment.

I don't agree with Nihil novi's desire to leave things as they are – though I understand. I'm surprised that he finds the final paragraph acceptable, given his comments. But maybe we should call it a day? Rwood128 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Nihil's most valuable comment is: "In principle, Conrad could equally well have spent the first 10 years of his life in Poland's Austrian sector and still have gone to sea." It is valuable because it shows Nihil's agenda. This article is about Joseph Conrad and what he actually did. It is not about Polish history or anything like that. It is not about a fantasy Conrad who grew up in Krakow and became a pianist. It is about the real Conrad. Nihil shows no interest in the real Conrad, but seems only interested in making irrelevant comments about Polish history, stretching back to the Middle Ages. Go and write a blog, Nihil. Don't colonise a Wikipedia page!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Nihil novi for your recent attempt to address the issue of Conrad's birth place. It was, however, cumbersome and regrettably I agree with the revert. Rwood128 (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Casement

Conrad did not feel he had the right to speak out publicly as an Englishman.

This doesn't really convey the reason why Conrad didn't speak out about Roger Casement. I think it needs to be expanded.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Four years later, he told his niece Karola Zagórska, who was visiting him: "Casement did not hesitate to accept honours, decorations and distinctions from the English Government while surreptitiously arranging various affairs that he was embroiled in. In short: he was plotting against those who trusted him."

I suspect that the real reason Conrad did not want to get involved was his own insecurity as a foreigner in Britain, and a reluctance to upset his adoptive countrymen; the same motive that caused him to criticize Belgian imperialism in the Congo but avoid criticizing British imperialism.

However, I hate to speculate in the article about his motives in the Casement case; and if more definite information is not available, I would rather forgo ascribing a motive – or even skip the matter of his non-involvement altogether.

Nihil novi (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

According to John Stape, Conrad called Casement's actions a "stab in the back". "He was, as we have seen, habitually hesitant in making public pronouncements about politics, and he strongly identified with an England that was strongly threatened by her enemies" (Joseph Conrad, page 207). It seems clear that he saw Casement as a traitor, as did many others. I don't see any evidence for your theory. What does Najder actually say? In any case, "Conrad did not feel he had the right to speak out publicly as an Englishman" raises more questions than it answers. It would be better to leave it out.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted Najder's observation, in connection with the Casement death sentence, that "on other occasions Conrad also showed that he did not feel he had the right to speak out publicly as an Englishman." (Zdzisław Najder, Joseph Conrad: A Life, p. 480.)

I have transferred the rest of the information on Casement's sentencing and death (Najder, pp. 480–81) to a note.

Nihil novi (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Conrad's Mother

Hello,

I have been researching the family name Bobrowski. I believe Conrad's mother is Ewelina Bobrowski (Daughter to Joseph Bobrowski, sister to Stefan Bobrowski and Theodor Bobrowski). In your article, her name is listed as Ewa Bobrowska. This might just be a typo.

my reference was https://archive.org/stream/polishheritageof00morf/polishheritageof00morf_djvu.txt

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morkiey (talk • contribs) 17:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Polish is a heavily declined language. One rule is that a female's last name is in feminine form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:12C1:44F5:79B8:9F86:EB1D:D122 (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Morkiey: See Polish name#Suffix -ski/-ska. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Updating introductory paragraph to reflect that Conrad is an English writer (2019)

There's a worldwide consensus that Joseph Conrad is an English writer of Polish descent. Most other language WPs say so (see Ukrainian, Polish, Portuguese etc.), as well as every respectable encyclopedia does (see Britannica, The Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Fiction etc.). The current version that says "Polish-British" writer is misleading and confusing and should of course be replaced with the correct statement (e.g., either "British writer of Polish descent" or "English writer of Polish descent").--Piznajko (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

How is this a correct statement? You haven't explained yourself. Ukrainian Wikipedia is bias and full of misleading information and I don't know what it has to do with Conrad anyways. Polish Wikipedia is biased. You haven't provided reliable English sources or publications eg books and textbooks since this is English Wikipedia. Regardless a consensus was achieved before and Conrad held both citizenships. User:Oliszydlowski, 01:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC).

Jonathan Swift, Edmund Burke, George Bernard Shaw, James Joyce, and Samuel Beckett all wrote in English. In this English-language Wikipedia, Swift is described as "Anglo-Irish"; Burke as "Anglo-Irish"; Shaw as "Irish"; Joyce as "Irish"; and Beckett (who wrote in both English and French) as "Irish".

Joseph Conrad, who never lost his Polish language and always spoke English with a striking Polish accent, was doubtless linguistically and culturally more Polish than any of the above authors was Irish. By all rights, he can be properly described as a "Polish author who wrote in English". Calling him "Polish-British" is already a major concession to the acquired British elements in his biography and psyche.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

David Hume and Adam Smith, two Scottish Enlightenment figures, wrote in English. Both are described in the English-language Wikipedia as "Scottish", plain and simple.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you gentlemen not know how to read? I gave you literally the most respectable encyclopedia in the world - Britannica, which unequivcoally states that Conrad is an English writer - Britannica. Also I gave you specialized literature encyclopedia The Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Fiction that says he's "British novelist" and you tell me You haven't provided reliable English sources or publications eg books and textbooks. All those authors you just quoted (e.g., David Hume, Adam Smith etc.) have nothing to do w/ Conrad. We can say Conrad is "English writer of Polish descent" or that he's "British writer of Polish descent" either way he's def. not "Polish-British".--Piznajko (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski and I don't know what it has to do with Conrad anyways Ha, funny you should say that, given that Conrad was born in Ukraine.--Piznajko (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski, Nihil novi also gentlemen the burden of proof is actually on you - I've provided respectable encyclopedias that say Conrad is a 'English/British author of Polish descent" (and can provide dozens more encyclopedieas if need be, (e.g., Encyclopedia of the British Novel, Encyclopedia of British Writers: 19th and 20th Centuries etc.) now you provide a respectable encyclopedia that says otherwise and then we can talk. --Piznajko (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Conrad was not "of Polish descent". He was Polish. Nihil novi (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe this is even being discussed. Piznajko, how about you contact Conrad and ask him because this is going beyond ridiculous. Next you will try to discuss whether he was British or English... There are plenty of other sources stating him as Polish-British, and Conrad being born in what is now Ukraine does not fit in the context. Back then Ukraine was a region. Also please see Conrad's own words concerning his allegiance in Joseph Conrad by Tom Middleton page 14 Oliszydlowski, 19:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Works by Joseph Conrad

In your standard boilerplate at the foot of the page 'Works by Joseph Conrad', there is no mention of 'The Mirror of the Sea'. It would belong naturally in the section 'Other works'. Valetude (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

Hi, I would like to add a link to a 1919 Vanity Fair interview with the Joseph Conrad. Mrjacobssen (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - QuadColour (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

OOOPS! I forgot to paste the link www.oldmagazinearticles.com/article-summary/joseph_conrad_interview_vanity-fair-magazine_1919 Mrjacobssen (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - QuadColour (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Conrad in Congo

Our text states "Conrad's three-year association with a Belgian trading company". Najder in PSB states however states his Congo service with the Belgians lasted only few months in 1891. It also would be nice to specify said company's name. Given the referenced details at Joseph Conrad's career at sea, I guess PSB entry is incorrect? PS. I added some more details using content from the subarticle; the split was not done very carefully, as I the text that remained here is a bit sparse on some elements of his life, and refers to events or such that aren't described sufficiently. I'd recommend rereading this section as well as the subarticle and considering if some more details shouldn't be restored. Ping User:Nihil novi. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article.

The splitting out of "Joseph Conrad's career at sea" was not my idea, was not done by me, and in my opinion was unnecessary. I re-added some especially crucial details of the sea career to the main article.

I provided page numbers of sources, but someone may have done some housekeeping of source references, losing paginations.

I spent half a year working up the article, and I fear I may not soon be able to devote a similar order of time to revising it.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It might be interesting to compare Zdzisław Najder 1969 with Zdzisław Najder 2007. The latter source is much longer than the former, and more recent. More recent sources tend to be more accurate and more complete.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point, it is reasonable to assume 2007 > 1969, so in case of inconsistency, we should use the 2007 work. Unfortunately I only have access to the scan of the older one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ping User:Piotrus: Thanks for adding the information about Conrad's 1890 and 1893 visits to Poland. They are in "Joseph Conrad's career at sea", in the "African interlude" section, and so were lost to the main article when someone inadvisedly split the article – as if Conrad's "career at sea" were a negligible part of his life.

Maybe the "career" article should be reunited with the main article?

Nihil novi (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about this; the subarticle is a bit unusual but at the same time, it is normal to create them once the article is long enough, and this one is over 10k words (11065). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: excellent, all my concerns are addressed. The article is B-class for sure, and I strongly encourage you to try WP:GAC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: I looked the version just before the split in 2013: [7]. I was able to fix few errors, but a number of claims were uncited back then, or page numbers were missing. It's not much, so I hope you'll be able to fix those issues - or we can just remove the relatively minor facts with problematic citations. Then I think this article can be submitted to WP:GAC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, thank you for flagging unpaginated passages. I think I found all the flags.

I have provided pagination for them, except for a couple of passages that I've deleted.

Nihil novi (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: I recmmend submitting the article for WP:GAC. (But I still see three or so places where pagination is needed, I recommmend CTRL+F for the word "needed"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical information.

I've provided some paginations, and dumped rather noncontributory remarks by Meyer and Said.

Nihil novi (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Born in Poland

Conrad was Born in Poland which during that time was partitioned, invaded by three countries. He was Born in the part of Poland, which was captured by Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.160.31 (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

B-class review

Passed as B-class for WP:POLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ping User:Nihil novi: I strongly encourage you to submit this to WP:GAN, together with the subarticle about his life at the sea. The GAN procedure is pretty simple. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ping User:Piotrus:

Many thanks for both. I may try for a "Joseph Conrad" GA after completing some urgent projects. I notice that many substantial biographies of prominent writers have not advanced beyond B. Also, I'm a bit leery of reviewers putting their (depreciated) two cents' worth into the article.

A few years ago, someone took the initiative to obtain GA for my "Bolesław Prus" article.

My "Biuro Szyfrów" has, also without any effort from me, received GA.

My "Marie Curie" also has.

Someone secured an FA for my "Marian Rejewski" article.

Someone usurped my "Frédéric Chopin" article, substituting English-language sources for Polish, and got it an FA star.

Other articles of mine that might eventually warrant GA or FA include "Nicolaus Copernicus", "Translation", "Prometheism", "Intermarium", "History of philosophy in Poland", "Perfection", "Pharaoh (novel)"...

Nihil novi (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Convert footnotes to Explanatory footnotes (efn)

There are 45 footnotes (as opposed to source references) in this article, using the <ref group= > syntax. It is difficult to provide source references in such footnotes, since <ref>s do not work within <ref>s. I propose to convert the <ref group= > footnotes to Explanatory footnotes (Template:Efn), which will allow all styles of source references to be used in the footnotes. I would also convert the present ad hoc citations within footnotes into <ref>s using the appropriate Cite template (Cite book, Cite journal, etc.). An example of how this style of footnotes looks is Juan Ortiz (captive). I will also note that there is no consistent style of formating source references in the article, but that is an issue that can be addressed later. I would like to start working on this project in about a week, if there is consensus for me to do so. - Donald Albury 14:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Donald Albury, thank you, I'm beginning to see your points.

I suspect that, if you would be so gracious, your expertise could make a big improvement in the "Joseph Conrad" article.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This article has been on my watchlist for almost 10 years, but I hadn't paid much attention to it most of that time. I just noticed the problem with referencing sources in the notes, and though I could help with that. Sometimes I concentrate on adding content, and sometimes I like to do gnomish things. - Donald Albury 23:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Albury. I have tried now to substitute in the efn system, unsuccessfully.

I must be neglecting something. Perhaps if you could "prime the pump", I could then continue the prorcess of converting the notes?

Thanks !

Nihil novi (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There are some appearance issues to address. I've always used Template:Efn in the default mode, which shows lower case Latin letters to mark footnotes, i.e., [a]. It is also possible to specify upper case Latin ([A]), lower or upper case Roman numerals ([ii], [II]) or lower case Greek letters ([α]). As there are currently 45 footnotes in this article, that means we would run out of Latin or Greek letters. I assume, but do not know for sure, that the next footnote after [z] would be [aa]. Roman numerals would work, although I feel that a footnote marked by something like [xxxviii] is awkward. Using Template:NoteTag would also allow <ref> ... </ref> in the footnotes, and would mark the footnotes with [Note 1], which would retain the way explanatory footnotes are currently marked in this article. I will try converting a few footnotes to NoteTag to see how it looks. One issue will be that, until the conversion is complete, there will be one list of footnotes stating with Note 1, followed by another list, also starting with Note 1. Hopefully, that state will not last very long. - Donald Albury 14:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have started on the conversion in the lead section. The results appear to be seamless. There does not appear to be a problem with the number sequence for notes between the two styles. I did make an editorial judgement or two on what should be an explanatory footnote and what should be a source citation. - Donald Albury 15:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Albury, thank you for the work on the lead.

However, if you compare the present lead text with that of 7:43, 21 December 2020, you will find that most of what is now open text was previously folded into notes, where it probably should be.

I don't want to try interfering with what you are – with more expertise than I possess – doing.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I have that fixed. - Donald Albury 23:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Albury, my apologies for the nested-Russian-dolls quality of some of the notes and citations in the "Joseph Conrad" lead.

You did a near-perfect job with it. I think I've managed to complete correcting the 2nd paragraph.

Do you think I've gotten the hang of your NoteTag system? If I'm unlikely to stumble into an unseen minefield, perhaps I could try carrying on your work?

Nihil novi (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are comfortable doing those edits, go right ahead. I certainly don't own anything here. There are other items in the article that could also be be cleaned up. References should be in a consistent format throughout the article. I don't particularly care what style is used, but some reference styles are easier to maintain than others. Another problem is overlinking. "Zdzisław Najder" is linked 36 times. Only four of the links show in the body of the article, which is not excessive for an article of this length. The overlinking is in the footnotes and references. Anyway, something to think about. - Donald Albury 20:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Albury, for teaching me the NoteTag system. I've tried it out on several notes – I think, successfully – and will try to complete them. Please let me know, if you should notice me making errors.

You are right about the "efn" system – "z" is followed by "aa" (not very elegant !).

Thank you for pointing out the "Najder" overlinking. I've sometimes thought it might help readers quickly access information about Najder. I will try to clean up the overlinking.

Reference formatting remains beyond my competence. Once I've completed the more menial tasks, any assistance with the references would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks !

Nihil novi (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Albury, I've completed the note conversions and have reduced the overlinkings – while, I hope, not creating errors.

I would welcome any further critiques or suggestions concerning the article's format or contents.

With best wishes of the season and the new year,

Nihil novi (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Albury, it just belatedly dawned on me that you have completed overhauling the notes and references in the "Joseph Conrad" article. Perhaps I had been subconsciously looking forward to your expert company at the article. You have made a tremendous difference to its quality, and I am sure that anyone who reads it will appreciate your work.

Should you have any suggestions for clarifying or improving the text, they too would be greatly appreciated.

With best wishes to you and yours in the new year,

Nihil novi (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Nationality and Citizenship

I find it odd that the infobox, under "nationality", lists solely, "Polish", as he was also British, which is reflected under the "citizenship" entry; I feel that both Polish and British should be listed under nationality. Furthermore, I would propose that we add a note under "citizenship" that he also held Russian citizenship for much of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNimon (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Some may question the definition of "nationality" (national origin? citizenship?).

However, I have made the adjustments to the infobox that you suggest.

Thanks for raising the matter.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Nihil novi thank you for the adjustment. Citizenship in this matter is not a priority (to Conrad's work, career or national identity) for the infobox so I removed it. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Oliszydlowski.

Question: Why is this article of "top" importamce for the Ukraine project – but "low" for the England project? Seems counterintuitive.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: - No idea. I never edited this talk page before. Looking at history, it was User:Dthomsen8 in August 2019 who classified it this way. I shall reclassify and let me know if you agree. Oliszydlowski (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski:. I'm not sure how much Ukrainians identify with Conrad, a Pole who happened to be born in present-day Ukraine. Otherwise, your reclassification looks good. Thanks!

Nihil novi (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

This page needs a disambig or something like that. Józef Korzeniowski is a re-direct to this article, but there was *ANOTHER* Polish writer of that name who lived 1797-1863: pl:Józef Korzeniowski (1797–1863). --2003:EF:1706:3234:7D8E:EED8:D237:CC6C (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

But that one has no article on en.wiki, so no en-wiki disambiguation is required. You could try and create an en.wiki article for him, I guess. But he's much less notable in he English speaking world. hanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Needs rewrite

Too long, too discursive, too focused on America (yet again!). One thing Conrad was not, American. Unraed (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article, please be specific. Mention the wording to change and what to change it to. Mention the RS to use. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"Further reading" list

On 22 September 2022, user:Aza24 changed the heading "Secondary sources (bibliography)" to "Further reading". Both of these headings are inaccurate.

Some of the books and articles that have now been labeled as "Further reading" are in fact used in the article and are therefore "Sources" items, not "Further reading" items.

And some of the mislabeled "Further reading" works appear in both of the source lists. They should be removed from the "Further reading" list.

Nihil novi (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I have moved several items from "Further reading" to "Sources", where they belong.

Some items that appear in the "References" are not listed in "Sources". They should be added to "Sources".

Nihil novi (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful article!

I came to this article looking for facts, and then read the entire text out of pure enjoyment. A beautiful article which succeeds very well in conveying the contradictions of Conrad's person and the richness of his work. Thanks for the excellent piece! (-: 84.212.81.79 (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)