Talk:P. G. Wodehouse

Reverted language edits

Some largely stylistic changes I made to the section "Hollywood: 1929–1931" were reverted by Tim Riley. I thought they were improvements but Riley thought not and said he was changing back to the "agreed FA version." I'm not sure what that means or who "agreed" to it (do some editors get a veto on textual edits?), but I think the current version is harder to follow, so I'm explaining my changes here to see if I'm alone in thinking this.

I changed "In a 2005 study of Wodehouse in Hollywood, Brian Taves writes that" to ". . . Taves wrote that" — using the present tense in a sentence that begins with the date of a 17-year-old article read oddly to me.

I also changed this paragraph:

Wodehouse's contract ended after a year and was not renewed. At MGM's request, he gave an interview to The Los Angeles Times. Wodehouse was described by Herbert Warren Wind as "politically naive [and] fundamentally unworldly", and he caused a sensation by saying publicly what he had already told his friends privately about Hollywood's inefficiency, arbitrary decision-making, and waste of expensive talent. The interview was reprinted in The New York Times, and there was much editorial comment about the state of the film industry.

to:

Wodehouse's contract ended after a year and was not renewed. At MGM's request, he gave an interview to The Los Angeles Times, in which he caused a sensation by saying publicly what he had already told his friends privately about Hollywood's inefficiency, arbitrary decision-making, and waste of expensive talent. Wodehouse, who biographer Herbert Warren Wind described as "politically naive [and] fundamentally unworldly", did not realize the effect his comments would have. The interview was reprinted in The New York Times, and newspaper editorials used it to criticise the state of the film industry.

(Rereading I'd now also swap the last two sentences.)

In the current version, the sentence on Herbert Wind is confusing as the first half has no obvious relation to the previous sentence, about the interview. It isn't clear whether Wind was a writer for the LA Times or whether the quote refers to anything specific Wodehouse did. And the phrase "there was much editorial comment" reads like a bad newspaper article from 1907. ("There was much comment among the chattering classes on the subject of Lady Asquith's new hat.") I realise the article is about an early twentieth century writer, but there's no need for it to read like a schoolboy parody of Edwardian prose. It's also vague. Don't say "there was much editorial comment". Say what the editorial comment was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.249.115.55 (talk • contribs)

It looks as though it will help if I explain Wikipedia's Featured Article process. An article, often after a peer review by various colleagues, is examined by any interested editors at the Featured Article (FAC) process, which is rigorous. Prose issues are dealt with at one or both reviews, and the resulting article is agreed as the best Wikipedia has to offer. The article can, of course, be improved thereafter, but prudence is advisable, and it is not on the whole wise for any visiting editor to proclaim that s/he knows better than the principal authors and all the reviewers put together, or to wade in with wholesale alterations to suit his/her personal preferences. Your prose suggestions, including a clunky false title and inconsistent spelling, and showing ignorance of the normal conventions for citing authors in the present tense, are not really up to scratch, I'm afraid. I hope this helps you understand better. Tim riley talk 18:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree that the status quo version is the better of the two. The language is appropriate (and certainly not the sneeringly described “schoolboy parody of Edwardian prose”), and it summarises the points well. Note, summarises. This is an encyclopaedic article, not a full-length book, so we don’t need to give a series of examples of the editorial comment, for example, just note that there was some. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:2C03:C4C2:31E2:927C (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

P. G. Wodehouse revert

Yesterday I spent about 15 minutes trying to find information about Wodehouse's wife (the only thing I was interested in at the time) in his long detailed article. I knew the information would be easier to find in a clearly titled separate section, so moved information about Wodehouse's wife and adopted daughter into a new Marriage section. This morning I find that you have reverted my edit. I will not get into an edit war and will never edit the Wodehouse article again, but I found it a difficult article to find information about his family. If you feel chronological is best so be it, but it is not helpful to someone who already knows the gist of Wodehouse's career, but wants specific information. Karenthewriter (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note- which I have moved from my talk page to here. The reason I put the information back into the chronological run is that his marriage - while obviously important for the Wodehouses, isn't of enough encyclopaedic significance to warrant its own section. Why a section for that and not for every other aspect of his rather busy life? If we divide an article into multiple tiny sections just to separate each factoid from another, we may as well just bullet point the entire article. Personally when I am searching for an specific fact, such as when someone married or what the wife's name is, I tend to use Control and F to find it, which would probably have saved you some searching time. Still, I hope you enjoyed reading the article in the meantime. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Bertram Fletcher Robinson

I recently tried to add a short additional and fully referenced fact to the 'Reluctant banker; budding writer: 1900–1908', section of this article but it was rapidly reverted. Therefore, please could I kindly ask one of the regular contributors/editors to kindly consider the paragraph below, and consider whether there is any merit in making some reference to this literary collaboration within the main P.G. Wodehouse article. Many thanks.

"Between December 1903 and January 1907, Robinson (‘Bobbles’) and his friend, P. G. Wodehouse (‘Plum’), co-wrote four playlets that were published in three different periodicals. Each playlet is written in the style of a pantomime and they parody the debate within Edwardian era Britain surrounding the Tariff Reform League and proposed changes to tax law. During July 2009, these playlets were compiled and republished in facsimile form by Paul Spiring in a book titled Bobbles & Plum. This book also features an introduction by the prominent Wodehouse scholars, Lieutenant-Colonel Norman Murphy and Tony Ring, and text annotations by W.S. Gilbert scholar, Andrew Crowther."

Accompanying references: 82.38.214.91 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Hi IP, Looking at the article's history, I don't see any edits including this information and no reverts.

Looking at what there is, I'm not sure the playlets are significant enough for inclusion. Wodehouse wrote 42 plays and 15 scripts (along with the 72 novels and 23 short story collections), and most of these are not included in the article because there isn't enough space for them all and/or many of them are not notable enough to cover alongside the works for which he is internationally known even 50 years after his death. - SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed the IP added that material... to the BFR article. In August last year. Which has not been reverted. And which section had nothing to do with bankers etc. Is there a Specsavers in SW England. Or just mescaline :D ——Serial 19:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting thread. The edit appears to relate to a contribution made on 8th August 2023. I have made some edits and reposted it with additional peer-reviewed references that include supportive comments from Hilary Bruce, N.T.P. Murphy and McCrum. Bw, Prspiring (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Using the rationale of my comment above, I’ve removed it. The ‘playlets’ in themselves are too trivial (particularly when compared with other works that are not mentioned), and the 2009 work is far too tangential to warrant inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I respect your view and do see your point. Nevertheless, Robinson was the PGW's editor at Vanity Fair (May 1904 – October 1906) and clearly he helpeded to support and promote subject's early literary career. Therefore, it does appear rather at odds with the views expressed by the notable scholars in the accompanying references that there is no reference to this four year nascent collaboration. Nevertheless, I understand that we live in a democracy and I also recognise your concerns surrounding a potential COI. So let's just leave it to the other readers to decide, because afterall, "There is no surer foundation for a beautiful friendship than a mutual taste in literature." :) Bw, Prspiring (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Citizenship in the opening line

Musicisdeadon, rather than edit war, do you think you could discuss before reverting again? Wodehouse became famous when he was English and spent most of his life writing as an Englishman, writing quintessentially English stories in a very English style. This is all based on the sources which are used in the article. We deal with his US citizenship in a different part of the lead, so it is still mentioned, but is of less importance than the Englishness. As this is an FA which has gone through two community review processes which agreed with the text, maybe discussion rather than trying to force the issue should be your choice of action here. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat

Please refer to the talk topic "Nationality and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style" on Talk:P._G._Wodehouse for a full outline on this issue. I believe it provides a balanced and comprehensive overview of the factors to consider.

Apologises for not seeing your talk topic until after I had posted my topic. As you can understand, I was engaged in reviewing the subject and guidelines Musicisdeadon (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Nationality and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style

Hello,

There has been some dispute as to what approach should be taken in describing P.G. Wodehouse's nationality as well as what I believe to be a misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia:Manual of Style describes the approach that should be taken with nationality and lead lines. I was hoping this could be resolved with the note left on the page describing the logic taken, but unfortunately I must elaborate further.

I strongly oppose any and all proposals to change the description of P.G. Wodehouse in the lead of his Wikipedia article from "English and American writer" to solely "English writer." Such a change would be factually misleading and inconsistent with Wikipedia’s Manual of Style (MOS) guidelines on biographical entries. Here are my key reasons for maintaining the description of "English and American writer":

Consistency with Wikipedia’s Manual of Style (MOS) Guidelines

According to the Manual of Style, particularly MOS:NATIONALITY, biographical entries should provide context that makes the person notable, including a clear reflection of the country or countries where the person was a national or permanent resident when they became notable:

Dual Nationality in Lead Sentences: The MOS suggests using dual nationality in the lead when the individual has significant connections to more than one country. Examples provided by the MOS include Arnold Schwarzenegger ("Austrian and American actor") and Peter Lorre ("Hungarian and American actor"). P.G. Wodehouse fits this model as his career and public identity were significantly tied to both England (where was born and is a citizen) and the United States (where he had permanent residency and later citizenship).

Avoiding Ambiguity: The MOS advises against ambiguity in biographical descriptions. By retaining "English and American writer," the lead remains clear and precise, acknowledging both phases of Wodehouse's career and his dual citizenship. Changing the lead to only "English writer" would be ambiguous and misleading, suggesting his American citizenship and the substantial part of his career in the U.S. were not significant.

Accurate Representation of his Lifelong American Connection

P.G. Wodehouse was born in England and began his career there, but he later moved to the United States, where he would base himself for a significant and notable part of his career before becoming a naturalised citizen in 1955. His connection to the United States, which includes his dual nationality, is not a trivial aspect of his identity; it is a significant part of his personal and professional life. It is a key part of what makes him notable.

Many of Wodehouse's most notable works were authored, published, and/or serialised in the United States first, some never published in Britain in his lifetime. This is particularly true of his post-war era where he was a controversial figure in the UK. Many of his well-known stories first appeared in American publications such as The Saturday Evening Post. Wodehouse was a figure of note in the early development of the Broadway Musical and, while less notable, briefly worked for MGM in what was considered it's golden age.

Wodehouse's naturalisation as an American citizen marked an important chapter in his life, while it was late in his life it still provided context for his life-long connection to the US as well as many of the events preceding his naturalisation. It is essential to recognise this citizenship in the lead as it is a key part to understanding the subject. To omit this and describe him solely as "English" would ignore the complexity and the significance of the American phase of his life and would fail to capture the full scope of his career and contributions to both English and American literary traditions.

Relevance of Nationality Over Cultural Perception

While some may perceive Wodehouse’s work as "quintessentially English," this is a cultural characterisation and not a reflection of his nationality or the full breadth of his career:

Nationality is a factual and legal status, while terms like "quintessentially English" are subjective and refer to a style or cultural perception. Wodehouse’s style may reflect certain British sensibilities, but this does not negate his American citizenship or his significant contributions to American culture. For example, J.R.R. Tolkien is not described as "Elvish" simply because his work, The Silmarillion, deeply explores Elvish culture; similarly, Wodehouse’s "English" style does not preclude him from being accurately described as an "English and American writer."

The Naturalisation Itself is Context for Understanding His Life and Work

P.G. Wodehouse's naturalisation provides critical context for understanding several key events in his life:

His well-documented issues around citizenship, visas, and taxes significant role in his later life. This includes his time as an tax exile, his wartime internment, the circumstances in which he came to make his controversial broadcasts during World War II, and the British government’s considerations surrounding his knighthood. His eventually naturalisation, while late in his life, are effectively the "final chapter" of these long-running problems that ultimately lead to the downfall of his career. Therefore the American citizenship and naturalisation itself are essential for readers to understand his biography in context.

Conclusion

Wodehouse’s work and life in the United States solidifies his identity as an "American writer" alongside being an "English writer." This dual contribution to both English and American entertainment and culture should be accurately reflected in the lead. As per MOS:NATIONALITY biographical entries should provide context that makes the person notable, including a clear reflection of the country or countries where the person was a national or **permanent resident** (emphasis added) when they became notable. Therefore it would be remiss to categorise Wodehouse in the opening line as solely an "English writer" just in the same way it would be remiss to categorise him solely as an "American" writer.

Changing P.G. Wodehouse's description to only "English writer" would misrepresent a significant part of his career and life spent in the United States. The current description of "English and American writer" is accurate, adheres to Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines, and provides readers with a comprehensive understanding of his identity and contributions.

While some might disagree, it is clear to me that the obvious approach to take is to keep the lead line as "English and American writer" unless a compelling reason can be made to divert from the what MOS:NATIONALITY clearly outlines.

I urge fellow editors to not let emotional or romantic rhetoric about who Wodehouse "ought to be" influence them into supporting a less accurate description. At best describing him solely as English is a highly misleading but innocent error, at worse it is nationalist editing.

Thank you for your attention, I apologise for styling errors as this is not my strong suit.

Musicisdeadon (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe read Wikipedia:Wall of text and realise that ‘less is more’ is an excellent way to approach leaving comments. It’s late, so I’ll leave more substantive comments in the morning, but you should note that edit warring on an FA and against the explicit consensus not just of the talk page, but two community review processes is looked upon badly. I strongly suggest you discuss the matter rather than edit war. This is in line with WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO. - SchroCat (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, there is already a consensus (through two community review processes), that the current wording is appropriate. You talk about not wanting to change it to ‘English writer’, but that’s what the consensus already is. What you are trying to do is change it from English writer, and for that you need a new consensus. This is not done through you edit warring your preferred version, but by discussion.

Secondly, you need to understand that the MOS is a series of guidelines, inherently flexible, and to be used with common sense and flexibility. They are not a series of rules or diktats to be slavishly adhered to without thought. Wodehouse is one of those where common sense shows us the right path to take. You point out in your over-long comment that the MOS says “biographical entries should provide context that makes the person notable, including a clear reflection of the country or countries where the person was a national or permanent resident when they became notable”: for Wodehouse that would not be the US, but the UK, where he became notable some fifty years before his American citizenship.

There is no doubt that he held American citizenship, and it is something that is already covered within the lead in an appropriate place. His citizenship, however, had no bearing on his output or style, which was still resolutely English in manner, style and form. (Some of your arguments on publication locations are either straw men, or are just untrue, by the way). You said in one edit summary that “Wikipedia is not "vibes based"”; that is true, although no-one was claiming it was. What Wikipedia is, is sources based, and the sources—while never denying he held dual citizenship at the end of his life—heavily stress Wodehouse’s Englishness. A few examples:

• “Wodehouse was a great writer of English prose, and the greatest of all English humorists.” (DNB)
• 1975, described as "the solitary surviving English literary comic genius" (The Guardian)
• Same year, same paper: “one, if not more than one, of England's greatest men”.

I could start going through the biographies and dig out a few dozen more such examples if needed, but given we already cover Wodehouse’s US citizenship in the lead, and in a more appropriate context, I’m not sure any more will be necessary. - SchroCat (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

What a fuss about nothing! Wodehouse was throughout his life English. So far as citizenship is concerned he was a lifelong British subject and he took joint US citizenship after the war. The present text is ideal, which is no doubt why more than a dozen contributions to the peer review and FAC raised no objection on this point. The very header to this thread is based on a misconception: England is not an independent country and one cannot either become or stop being English, any more than one can become or stop being Welsh or Scottish. This is nothing at all to do with citizenship. I hope this is the last we shall hear of this irrelevant nonsense. Tim riley talk 13:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree Tim riley, it's unfortunate to see continued misunderstandings about citizenship and nationality continue. I had actually used a different header but unfortunately somebody merged our talks into SchroCat's less accurate header.

As you've noted, Wodehouse was certainly English by birth and cultural identity, but this doesn't negate the fact that he had a significant connection to the United States that was eventually solidified by his naturalisation. This has been noted by his biographers. To counter misunderstanding, I must emphasise the core of my argument. The description as "English and American" accurately captures the full scope of Wodehouse's life and contributions to both country's rich literary traditions. It's not about changing nationality or citizenship definitions; it's about ensuring we provide a complete picture of his life to our readers. See my main reply to SchroCat for more details.

You raise an interesting point about peer review and FAC which I admit at first is persuasive, but lets keep focus of the fact that even peer review and FAC are not infallible, furthermore both took place nearly a decade ago. There has been a continued evolved understanding of nationality, the guidelines, and even Wodehouse since then. To my understanding as no objection was raised during FAC or PR it could simply be the case that it was an oversight and that if the FAC or PR had flagged it they likely would have came to the conclusion describing him as "English" exclusively is the wrong approach.

Musicisdeadon (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

”I had actually used a different header”: actually you used six headers, all of which are still in place, as it’s ridiculous to open a second new thread on the same subject, let alone six new threads. I’ll also repeat the advice that you read and take on board WP:WALLOFTEXT and strongly advise you to read it, and reduce your posts to manageable lengths, not force other people to waste their time going through long screeds of repetitive text. – SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello SchroCat,

Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed response and for outlining your perspective on this matter. I appreciate your commitment to maintaining the quality of the article and to ensuring that Wikipedia adheres to both its guidelines and its community consensus.

Firstly, I want to clarify that I am not engaging in an edit war, nor is that my intention. I am here to engage in a good faith discussion to ensure that the article reflects an accurate and comprehensive portrayal of P.G. Wodehouse's life and work, which I believe is in the best interest of Wikipedia's readers. In fact your editing and approach had been very disruptive, overbearing, and itself characteristic of an edit war. I hope I do not have to report this behaviour.

Regarding the consensus you mention, you claim there may have been prior community review processes and consensuses on this matter, but from what I can see this is not the case. The last peer review was nearly a decade ago when the MOS guidance this area was very different. Furthermore, this is the first time I'm hearing about them in our recent exchanges. Could you please provide the specific links or references to these reviews so that I and other interested editors can better understand the basis for this alleged current consensus? It is important that all participants in this discussion have access to the same information and context.

On the matter of the Manual of Style (MOS), I fully agree that it is a set of guidelines intended to be applied with flexibility and common sense. However, I believe the guidelines also provide a clear framework for ensuring articles are comprehensive and balanced. The MOS suggests that nationality should be contextualized in terms of the person's notability, and I think it's crucial to recognize that Wodehouse's American citizenship and his significant literary contributions while residing in the U.S. are notable aspects of his life and career. These aspects do not negate his English heritage or the primary identification of his work with English culture, but they do add important context that should not be overlooked.

I believe there is a misunderstanding in your response, particularly in your emphasis on the precise timing of Wodehouse's American citizenship. While it's accurate that Wodehouse was only naturalised as a U.S. citizen in 1955, the more relevant point to this discussion is that he enjoyed a substantial and enduring connection to the United States, where he spent several decades as a permanent resident. Some academics estimate he actually spent more of his adult life in the US than the UK. His work during this extensive period in the U.S. is a major component of what makes him notable, which justifies including "American" in the description. The acquisition of citizenship in 1955 merely formalised a long-standing affiliation with the United States, rather than marking its beginning.

There are numerous examples on Wikipedia of individuals being described by nationalities they never formally held as citizenship or only held citizenship for a small part of their long connection to the US. For instance, George Washington is unequivocally described as "American," even though legally he only had U.S. citizenship for the last nine to ten years of his life. This is because his identity and contributions are fundamentally tied to the United States. Similarly, John Oliver, another "quintessentially English" humourist whose humour is deeply rooted in his English style, is described as "British and American" in the lead line of his featured article. Even though Oliver has only been an American citizen for the past five years of his almost 50-year life and 30-year career, this description recognises his long-term connection to the U.S. and his significant career there. The reasoning for recognising Wodehouse as "English and American" is comparable.

As you pointed out, Wodehouse became notable in the UK before acquiring American citizenship, which is an important factor. However, I believe that his later life and works in the U.S., as well as his naturalisation as an American citizen, are also significant and contribute to his overall notability and identity. The authors of the examples you provided from the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) and The Guardian (interestingly, two British publications) choose to emphasise his Englishness, which is undoubtedly a key part of his identity, but this does not necessarily preclude also identifying him as having a significant connection to the United States, especially given his American citizenship and his notable period living and working there.

For example famed Wodehouse biographer Robert McCrum whose biography of Wodehouse is a key source in this very article described Wodehouse as follows:

“On a strict calculation of the time Wodehouse eventually spent in the United States, and the lyrics, books, stories, plays and films he wrote there, to say nothing of his massive dollar income, he should be understood as an American and a British writer" - Source (pdf link)

This is a view he elaborated on in Slate magazine - https://slate.com/culture/2002/04/p-g-wodehouse-s-secret-life-as-a-yank.html where he reasons that Wodehouse is deeply intertwined with both British and American cultures, making him a more transatlantic figure than commonly believed.

McCrum is not the sole holder of this view. Similar views can be found published in the:

Boston Globe - "P.G. Wodehouse’s language is as American as it is British"

The Guardian - " So the truth about Wodehouse is that, in his professional life, he was very much an American."

Jstor Daily - "Key to P.G. Wodehouse’s continuing appeal, says Karle, is that he made of America what he made of England"

Regarding your point about the relevance of his American citizenship to his output or style, while his style remained rooted in English humour, his career in the United States—his engagement with American media, his publications there, and his involvement with American culture contributed to his cross-broader status as a writer. Furthermore many, including McCrum, have pointed out the American influence in his writing. The lead sentence of an article should aim to provide a holistic view that encompasses the full scope of an individual's life and career.

There are countless authors who blend cross-cultural styles and the influence from their heritage in the US literary tradition. Ezra Pound did not loose their status as an American poet by rooting their work in Chinese traditions. T.S. Eliot (described by Britannica as an American-English poet) was not any less of a British poet for being influenced by his American roots, Leonard Cohen did not loose his Canadian or American status for being in touch with his Greek Orthodox Jewish roots. I would urge you to ensure that you are not falling victim to an implicit Wikipedia:Systemic bias simply due to the fact that Wodehouse's country of origin is an old world white country and therefore his birth nationality could never be displaced.

I am advocating for a lead that reflects both his English roots and his American ties. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's goal to provide a balanced and informative overview of notable figures. I believe that describing Wodehouse as an "English and American writer" provides a more comprehensive picture of his dual identity and diverse career.

Focusing solely on his English identity or the exact date of his American citizenship risks oversimplifying and misrepresenting the breadth of Wodehouse's life and career, which includes significant achievements and influences while he was a resident and later a citizen of the United States. Describing him as both "English and American" is not only accurate but also provides a fuller understanding of his dual cultural legacy.

I am open to further discussion and hope we can reach a consensus that best serves our readers and adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you again for your input and for your dedication to maintaining the quality of this important article.

Musicisdeadon (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy break

God in Heaven! Have we got to be subjected to further avalanches of logorrhoea from this one editor? I repeat, as I said earlier, What a fuss about nothing! Wodehouse was throughout his life English. So far as citizenship is concerned he was a lifelong British subject and he took joint US citizenship after the war. The present text is ideal, which is no doubt why more than a dozen contributions to the peer review and FAC raised no objection on this point. ... England is not an independent country and one cannot either become or stop being English, any more than one can become or stop being Welsh or Scottish. This is nothing at all to do with citizenship. I hope this is the last we shall hear of this irrelevant nonsense, though given the dogmatic scribaciousness of this one editor I doubt if we shall be so lucky. Tim riley talk 15:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I couldn’t agree more. We describe in the lead Wodehouse’s US interaction and citizenship extensively in the second and third paragraphs, and do so with the context and detail that gives readers a much more complete picture than just adding the word ‘American’ to the opening line. The focus on cluttering the opening line with something no-one has mentioned, let alone complained about, over the last nine years seems odd to say the least.

Despite the rather desperate attempts to claim otherwise, Wodehouse’s notability has no connection to his citizenship. Absolutely none. Musicisdeadon’s comments in the fourth and fifth paragraphs above seem to suggest we make no reference to any American connection, which is just plain untrue.

It’s about as untruthful as Musicisdeadon’s claims about my supposed behaviour; please feel free to go ahead and report me, I won’t be bullied by people throwing around such laughable threats (can I suggest you open a thread at WP:ANI, which would be the most suitable). I await your opening of the thread there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Wholly agree. I had no idea that scribaciousness was a real word. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)