Talk:Francis Stuart

Anti-semite?

I think its a little harsh to suggest Stuart hated jews. The only evidence of any anti-semitism is in his first broadcast for the 3rd Reich. There is a lot of evidence to suggest he wasnt. If no one objects I will remove that little piece of POV after I beef up the "activities in Germany" section. Fluffy999 19:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult one, it is almost certain that he was anti-semitic but he did succeed in his libel action: here is what I wrote when I first wrote the article:

Francis Stuart (1902-2000) was a prolific Irish writer whose novels have a thrusting modernist iconoclasm but whose reputation has suffered from allegations of anti-semitism and Nazism.

and I think this is certainly true, I was unhappy when it was changed, again, because he had defended a libel action. The person who changed it also added material to say that Irish libel laws were unusually hard on the defendant and that the libel case would have been decided the other way in another country, I was unhappy with this because it seemed an unencylopedic comment. However, I didn't revert these changes because I didn't want to get into an edit war where I was defending Francis Stuart, I mean yuck! I would be very pleased if you could fix this part of the article up: retain the facts, he had extreme right-wing views, he supported Nazi Germany, is widely regarded as having supported Nazism and as having been anti-Semitic, quoting the references on this, retaining the information about the libel case but removing the PoV stuff about the Irish legal system.Notjim 01:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no PoV involved wrt Irish (and British) Libel Law. What is stated is a matter of fact. In almost no other country is a burden of *proof* (viz. to the standard of criminal law) placed on authors and publishers. Evidence of this is the vast number of high-profile libel trials held in the UK; wealthy litigants with international interests always sue there even if they're not citizens or even residents. The it would simply be wrong to interpret the result of the Stuart case as having exonerated him. Similarly, a not-guilty verdict is not considered to have exonerated the defendent in a criminal trial.

Much evidence of Stuart's anti-Jewish sentiments has only come to light since the case was settled.

Broadcasting Nazi propaganda would in itself be considered an anti-Semitic act by most people, even if Stuart had never made any explicit remarks about Jews. As a former Nazi political activist you would have thought he'd have watched his words from then on, and still he made his infamous 'worm in the rose' comment broadcast on Ch4 TV... Exactly how much evidence is needed, and why on earth do people feel the need to make his excuses for him? Dduff442 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So this is exactly the discussion I wanted to avoid because I don't want to be accused of making excuses for Francis Stuart, again yuck, but it is impossible to say what would happen if the case was tried again or in another country, we simply don't know and the comments on the libel system imply that the result was a consequence of Irish libel law, again, we just don't know and to offer an opinion is to write original research. We do know now though that more evidence of his anti-semitism has been uncovered since the case, it is good to mention this, with references, just not to speculate on the effect this would have had on the libel case, unless there is a published opinion from some reasonable authority to reference, in which case, reference it.Notjim 04:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stuart's Aosdána supporters set the tone in this with their unbelievable intellectual contortions in his support. As I said, broadcasting Nazi propaganda can be considered an anti-Semitic act in itself. In fact it takes fantastic intellectual contortions to come to any other conclusion.

I've added an external link to the website of the Committee to Protect Journalists which describes the unusual severity of the Irish libel laws, and re-edited the 'were the case to be re-fought today' comment to make it more NPOV. I hope you find this satisfactory. Dduff442 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am happy with that and with the anti-semitism paragraph, thanks for your help in making the article describes Francis Stuarts opinions while avoiding unsupported opinion.Notjim 16:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, its a shame about breaking this article up into those sections, it really had a flow. What im trying to do on wikipedia is correct a lot of the myths around Irish, ww2, nazi etc. Some people have some issues with this and I have already met with hostility from at least 1 vociferous IRA supporter on this. Anyway, all I can do is add in what I know about his activities in Germany during that time, quote people who met with him, knew him, and what he is known to have said. Anything I dont know about wont be touched. Will try to keep it in proportion and might eventually lift out details for a complete article about Irland Redaktion which refers to Stuart. :) Fluffy999 02:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I added a little and will add more about his broadcasts at a later date- have a few other articles to tidy up at the minute :) The second quote is fairly ambigious- he can either be describing attacks on the jews, or supposed collaboration by jews and communists to destabilise Germany- I didnt interpret it for readers. Fluffy999 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your defence of the Anti-Semitism charge is, frankly, baffling. Stuart posted clippings from Der Stuermer to friends and wrote that 'Jewish activities' were 'in many instances appalling.' This proves he WASN'T anti-semitic? How? Dduff442 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I realise this is extremely belated...however, prima facie, I agree with Dduff442. As written, it seems to my reading that the "appalling" activities were those of the Jews, not the Anti-Semitic Nazi crackdown. It doesn't really make any sense read any other way. I have already inserted an in-text comment pointing this out, I think having read this discussion and the plurality of opinions I will in fact change it myself. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs proper sources

The opening sentence of this article -

'Francis Stuart (1902-2000) was a prolific Irish writer whose novels have a thrusting modernist iconoclasm.'

- means almost nothing, but insofar as it means anything, it's POV and therefore not for this site. I recommend it be rewritten as follows:

'Francis Stuart (1902-2000) was an Irish writer.'

Likewise, in this bit -

'The first of these lines is accepted as referring to Iseult and the second to Stuart.'

- the phrase 'is accepted as referring to' is weasel wording. Who accepts it? I am aware that these lines are supposed to refer to Stuart and Iseult, but we need a citation in which somebody goes on record as saying so. Likewise, 'both he and his wife struggled with personal demons and their internal anguish poisoned their marriage' is meaningless unless there are citations proving that this was so; it's not enough to make a vague references to Stuart's novels, which are after all novels and not autobiographies.

The para on Stuart's alleged anti-Semitism is confused; it quotes an arguably anti-Semitic remark of his, then says 'However' and quotes another one, as if this somehow contradicted the previous one, as opposed to supporting it.

Surely it doesn't need to be pointed out yet again that wikipedia is not the place to assess people's work or personalities. We can report on other people's recorded assessments of Stuart, but he is not to be either attacked or defended in this article. IMPO he was a terrible writer, an anti-Semite and a crypto-fascist, but I'm not going to use this article to say so, any more than somebody else should use it to try to prove that he wasn't.

Finally, I know he wrote a lot of novels and most of them are out of print, but it can't be impossible to name more than one of them. The 'Works' section is a small disgrace. Lexo 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not edit the article: the discussion page isn't really for criticizing articles, if you have a problem, change it, if someone disagrees with you change and wants to change back, then the discussion page should be used! Notjim 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! lots of talk here, but Stuart engenders that sort of thing. Have added a complete list of works as Lexo is obviously right about the works section. But wehy hasn't anyone else done it? I discoverd the article this morning, but have been reading Stuart for years.

I will have a go at copyediting the article, having had a lot of practice since I posted the above complaints. The article is clearly written from a very pro-Stuart viewpoint; I myself am not an admirer of Stuart as a person or as a writer (I am one of those left-liberal, tolerant, humanistic believers in democracy that he couldn't stand) but I believe in the importance of WP:NPOV. I will not be editing the article to be anti-Stuart, only to make it more neutral. Lexo (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-encyc

...both he and his wife struggled with personal demons

For the sake of clarity, could you spell-out whether this means, drink, drugs or sexual promiscuity? Valetude (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

All of the above, probably. Stuart's father was an alcoholic and Stuart's spectacularly abusive behaviour towards Iseult during their marriage was obviously bottle-adjacent, and they were a rackety pair all round and there's a reason why Iseult died of heart disease at only 59. It would be interesting to know more about exactly how and why Stuart, an indifferent hack writer whose works are not surprisingly out of print, and furthermore a Nazi sympathiser and Abwehr asset who broadcast propaganda for the Third Reich during the Second World War, was chosen for high honours by the Irish state in 1996, to have a golden torc placed around his neck by the Irish president, and why only one member of Aosdana voted against it. Like the heartfelt visits of de Valera and the crippled Hyde (who really had to make an effort in the circumstances) to express to the German ambassador their deep sorrow at the death of Adolf Hitler (and Hyde's strenuous and most deliberate visit was kept a state secret for half a century precisely because it revealed Hyde's true politics all too clearly), it's not exactly surprising, if you know anything about the Irish state, but it is, all the same, a bit odd. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)