Talk:James Joyce

It's not super well-known (and doesn't seem to be mentioned on this page), but there is a recording of Joyce reading a section of Aeolus:

https://www.themorgan.org/exhibitions/online/ulysses/joyces-recording-ulysses

Surely an actual recording of Joyce's voice on this page (and reading Ulysses nonetheless!) would be an essential addition to both this page and the Ulysses page.

I'm no copywrite expert but given the record was published in 1924, surely it'd now be in the public domain (if not very close to being in it). Neuroxic (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it'd be a great addition to both articles as long as its not violating copyright law, which I'm unsure of. Wtfiv (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That link gives Paris as a publication location - is it known whether it was published at that time in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesnt look like it. Only 20 pressing were made in 1924; they were paid for by the recorder rather than a publisher, and distributed to friends only. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah - in that case it would be unlikely to be PD at this point unless there's more info suggesting otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It will pass into PD in 2029. Thanks anyway Neuroxic; if I live for another 5 years will add it. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I added a link to his grandson Stephen James Joyce in the infobox. However I notice there is no other mention of him in the article. Why is that? There probably should at least be a sentence mentioning that his grandson managed his estate. Thrakkx (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there should be some mention of him in the main body. The infobox is meant to offer key facts drawn from the article, nothing unique. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of the history of the infobox on this article. I don't see any harm in adding the signature, in fact I quite liked it. John (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I just reviewed Talk:James_Joyce/Archive 4#RFC: Should the article have an infobox?, and the RfC close specifically allowed a signature. As there has been no reply here for a couple of days, and per this January 2023 RfC close, I'm going to re-add it. John (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

John, I removed the signature again thinking it had been readded elsewhere. I was just entering the rationale in talk, when I saw your post above. I was referenceing the final two comments on the RfC, which both agreed the signature wasn't needed. But your comment pointed out that I missed the closing comments themselves, which stated the signature could be kept. I'll revert my last edit. Thanks for the catch. Wtfiv (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Following from here, editors more familiar with this topic area may wish to discuss whether the quote about Dublin is appropriate to include in the lead. Sdkb ^talk 16:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The role of Dublin in his work is definitely important enough to merit inclusion. This quotation does that nicely, although I don't feel strongly about it either way as long as the general point is made.

If we wanted to trim the lead back a little bit, which would not be a bad idea, I'd target the second paragraph. I'm not sure we need much more detail about his travels than the fact that he left Ireland as a young man and spent most of his life in Paris. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to trim the lead. I think the Joyce cited quote is doing important work. Joyce lived internationally but kept his imaginative focus on Dublin, particularly the people, places and issues of his early years.

Unlike the Kurosawa quote, which addresses a very general theme, the indirect Joyce quote that ends the paragraph make it clear that Joyce's work is focused specifically on Dublin despite his spending almost all of his adult life outside of Ireland. At most, the third paragraph could be moved to the end, as it serves as part of his legacy, as well as the key of his artistic focus, which can be unambiguously verified by inspection of any of his four major works. Wtfiv (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kip Jamesa Joycea u Trstu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Maxbeirut: The change of image in this article has been reverted. When preparing this article during a featured article review, we could not establish whether it was published or whether it is in public domain based on photographer's death, as we have no evidence of when the Swiss photographer Alex Ehrenzweig died (see discussion under images here).

Ehrenzweig appears to be most prolific in the 1920s. If any of us can be established that he died before 1956, as copyright is life of author + 70 years, we can put that information in the Wiki Media image and replace the current image. Wtfiv (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It's been on Wikimedia Commons for years. The profile photograph doesn't deserve Featured status I'm afraid... we need portraits. If you have issues, make a discussion on Wikimedia Commons. Until then, the photo is kosher Maxbeirut (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

There are many pictures on the commons that are not out of copyright, but haven't been challenged. To meet featured article criteria, we need to adhere to copyright laws. I'm open to the picture chose and willing to guess that it may be past copyright, but without knowing when the author died this is difficult to determine. The photograph wasn't published and without date of death, it'd be best to follow the 120 year rule (i.e., 2037). I'll take it to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights to see what more informed editors have to say. Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Per our image use policy, we'd need to be able to prove the image is in the public domain before being able to use it as such. If we cannot do that, we cannot use the image, regardless of what Commons may do. Restoring previous version pending resolution.

What is known about the image's provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)