Talk:W. Somerset Maugham
Why has User:Wik removed the external link http://maugham.thefreelibrary.com/ ? The site looks OK to me and would be pretty useful I think. User:AtStart may have linked the same website on plenty of articles, but is there a policy that disallows this kind of linking ? I guess what finally matters is whether the link is relevant to the article or not. Jay 00:03, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I too was puzzled that that link was removed. I visited the site before and after the link was removed and I did not see anything obviously wrong with it. Dominus 04:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As it turns out, when I edited the page, my internet browser's filter software removed the words boondage (with one 'o') and hommoseexual (with one 'm' and one 'e') so if someone would go back through and replace those where there are big blank spots in the code, that would be appreciated. If not, I can from school tomorrow. Zephyrprince 21:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- thank you to whoever fixed that Zephyrprince 16:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
W. for William?
Why has this article substituted 'W.' for 'William' throughout? Was this the man's preference? Should the article not then explain this? Otherwise, shouldn't we just put it back to saying 'William'?
- I don't understand what explanation you would want. He almost never used the name "William" professionally; he was not professionally known as "William Maugham", although his personal friends did call him "Willie". Suggesting that his name be "put back" is akin to suggesting that all the references to Mark Twain in the Mark Twain article be "put back" to Samuel Clemens.
- The usual convention in an encyclopedia is that you call people by the names that they are usually called by. Why does this require explanation? -- Dominus 15:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Violation of NPOV.
"The posthumous allegation that Maugham was a homosexual is essentially unsubstantiated. The evidence to the contary is much more convincing.His peregrinating life style necesssitated a male secretary. In his works he clearly does not favor homosexuality."
As these four sentences violated NPOV, I removed them. Quite apart from the bizarre idea that Maugham would have openly "favor[ed]" homosexuality in his works if he were gay (an idea which indicates a faulty understanding of history on the part of whoever added it), calling the claim that Maugham was homosexual an "allegation" indicates an implicit bias. The worst sentence is "The evidence to the contary [sic] is much more convincing", which is editorial, and so violates NPOV. --Chips Critic 15:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)