Talk:Lord Dunsany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / People C‑class
WikiProject iconLord Dunsany has been listed as a level-5 vital article in People (Writers). If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


It is really serious considering this "18th Baron Dunsany" being part of his name. Being in bold.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like by Wikipedia:Naming conventions, this article should be called "Lord Dunsany"--the name by which the subject is overwhelmingly best known. Nareek 20:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The naming conventions for such titles are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names, which seems to indicate that the present form, Edward Plunkett, Lord Dunsany, or just plain Lord Dunsany would all be acceptable. As long as there are redirects from all reasonable variations, I don't think it matters much anyway. Brendan Moody 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP could have chosen as its naming policy, "It doesn't really matter as long as there are redirects from all reasonable variations." But it didn't--instead it goes on at some length about how you should choose a name. I think part of the idea is to standardize names to make linking easier. Nareek 22:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the policy does say how you should choose a name- and the current version is in line with that policy, even though it isn't necessarily the "best known" name. Looking at it more closely than I did when I made the comments above, the policy clearly favors including personal name and title regardless of more common variants. So Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston instead of Lord Palmerston, Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson instead of Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron Dunsany instead of Lord Dunsany. Brendan Moody 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's the relevant passage:
Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the late nineteenth century British politician Lord Frederick Cavendish was always known by that form of name, never simply Frederick Cavendish. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Cavendish. Similarly, Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright, is more recognisable to readers than Augusta Gregory.
Lord Dunsany is solely famous because he was a writer who wrote under the name "Lord Dunsany". That's the name by which he is universally known, and that, therefore, is what his Wikipedia article ought to be called--unless I'm missing something that differentiates him from Lady Gregory. Nareek 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The parallel with Cavendish is faulty. Lord Frederick bore a courtesy title as a son of a duke. Lord Dunsany–not, you'll notice, Lord Edward–bore a substantive title as the actual holder of the barony. I'm not sure which is a better parallel for Lady Gregory. —Tamfang 05:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea that there could only be one Lord X suitable for a Wikipedia article—the one one is interested in, naturally—is flawed, upon the briefest reflection. --Wetman 09:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As evidence that the name "Lord Dunsany" refers overwhelmingly to the author Lord Dunsany, I would direct you to the official Dunsany website, which describes itself as "the official site of the Dunsany family and the author Lord Dunsany". [1] If the Dunsanys recognize that "Lord Dunsany" refers to a specific person, shouldn't Wikipedia?
To use, for fear of ambiguity, an elaborately "correct" title that is utterly obscure when there is a much simpler, widely known appellation is directly contrary to the spirit of WP:NAME (even if it is the preference of those Wikipedians with a particular interest in aristocrats). It's like making an article called Albert Einstein of Ulm because you're worried that people might confuse him with the other Albert Einsteins that have no doubt existed throughout history. Or do I only think Albert Einstein refers to the physicist because he happens to be the Albert Einstein I am interested in? Nareek 16:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that the website specifies "the author Lord Dunsany". —Tamfang 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and they also refer to themselves as the "Dunsany family" rather than as "the Dunsanys", so as to avoid confusing people who might otherwise assume that they are just a random collection of people who all happen to be named Dunsany. My point was that this is a website put up by the group of people most likely to think of more than one person when they hear "Lord Dunsany". And when they use that phrase, they mean what virtually everyone who's heard of the name would mean--the famous fantasy writer. Nareek 20:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know an internet page,where can be found the complete text of "The Man who Ate The Phoenix" ,because i've looked and the lowest price for that book is 250 dollars. David—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There probably isn't one; it's in copyright in the United States, and is late enough that it may be in other countries. (Yes, I join the consensus on the follies of American copyright law.) Septentrionalis 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. The Dunsanys have been around for some 800 years in this part of Meath. There has been a whole slew of fellas going under the name "Lord Dunsany". The current title is precise, and that's always a good thing. Now, would somebody please change the redirect that sends me to this page when I key in 'Dunsany' in wikipedia? I am looking for the page with the entire Dunsany peerage, and not this guy (who was far less significant than many others in the history of this branch of the Plunketts). Buíochas. 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This particular Dunsany is the only Dunsany known to most of Wikipedia's audience, so the redirect should stay.--Prosfilaes 03:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, common sense required here. There is a link right at the top of the article to the Baron of Dunsany (the full name of the title, if you like) article anyway. But, even if accepting the contention of more famous / important holders (???) in some local sense, to most of the world, there is just one Lord Dunsany, one of the guys who brought the genre of Fantasy on to the scene. So, no change. 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The redirects from such as "Lord Dunsany" should stay. But there is a case for the redirect from "Dunsany" to go to a dab page, as it is also the title, castle, place, etc. But in that event, the author should lead the list, certainly. 10:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Lord Dunsany is virtually universally known (if at all) by that name, the obvious article title is "Lord Dunsany". However, I don't see a need to stir up controversy or change it. The redirect does the necessary work. Zaslav (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The secret of the sea[edit]

What is the intention of that section? Does it have any special importance wrt Lord Dunsany (which shoule be the title of this page) and/or his work? Fram 13:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beats me. I've deleted it. (As for the title, Lord Dunsany can legitimately refer to any of the 20 holders of that title, and one could argue that its default meaning is the current holder.) —Tamfang 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. As for the title, it is not that important. It's just that normally (AFAIK) articles are listed under the name most probably used (in searches and in links) (so for the writer that would be Lord Dunsany), and when different articles could have the same name (as with Lord Dunsany), a disambiguation page is made for the less obvious / important ones, even if they are the 'current' one. It is hard to find similar cases, but e.g. the current Winston Churchill is listed as Winston Churchill (grandson). Raphael and Michelangelo go straight to the painters, even though there are other ones. Sting is listed under his pseudonym, even though he (obviously) has another name, and Sting has many other meanings. On the other hand, Lord Byron redirects as well... No obvious correct solution here, I'm afraid! Fram 08:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that the naming rules used for aristocrats on Wikipedia do not conform to the naming rules for Wikipedia in general. This bothers me, both as an editor and as a (lower-case) republican. But the people who work on the articles about aristocrats are clearly invested in their "correct" usage, so I've never been able to muster the energy to really dispute this. Nareek 12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lord Dunsany redirects here; so it may not be a problem for readers. Septentrionalis 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horror writer?[edit]

What is this category talking about? I can think of one Dunsany story I'd call horror, and that's a maybe. Septentrionalis 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you ever read "Where the tides Ebb and Flow" ?Read that and then try to differ,if Lord Dunsany IS or IS NOT a horror writer. New Babylon—Preceding unsigned comment added by New Babylon (talkcontribs) 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's the one I meant... Septentrionalis 01:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But on the other hand, that and "Poor Old Bill" do not make a horror writer, unless every writer who ever did one creepy story (which is virtually every writer) is to be so classified. Do we add Category:Irish mystery writer for "Two Bottles of Relish"? Septentrionalis 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Library of Babel[edit]

Jorge Luis Borges included Dunsany's short story Idle Days on the Yann as the twenty-seventh title in "The Library of Babel".

This is misleading. "The Library of Babel" is, in one case, a short story by Borges, as you see in the link. There is no appearance of Dunsany or his works in that story. On the other hand, "The Library of Babel" is a book series collected and foreworded by Borges and published by "Franco Maria Ricci Editore, Mailand". One of these books is named "Idle Days on the Yann" and contains several short stories and plays by Dunsany. The german translation was published by "Edition Weitbrecht in K. Thienemanns Verlag" in 1983 as the 8th title of the series. 18:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Threw me when I read it. Fixed, though I don't know (and doubt) if there's an entry for the published series. -- 19:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lord Dunsany's religious views[edit]

At least one source affirms he was an atheist. 1 Any reliable information on this subject? I'll keep researching. 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that it would be impossible not to draw, or at least come close to arriving at that conclusion, albeit that this position varies with the intensity of it throughout his development as a person and a writer, and bearing in mind that he was also to an extent critical and sceptical of his own atheism: Man is a small thing, and the night is very large and full of wonders (Lord Dunsany, The Laughter of the Gods) User:sjc 10:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And see The Blessing of Pan, the early short stories and his autobiographical writings. No sign of an interest in organized religion, though he was married and buried in the Anglican churches. (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If Dunsany's favorite musical piece isn't a trivial piece of information, why is it labeled "Trivia"? Trivia sections are generally to be discouraged on WP as being contrary to the idea of an encyclopedia as organized information.

If Dunsany's musical tastes actually illuminate something about his life or writing, then the information should be incorporated into a relevant section. Nareek 13:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's under the trivia section, because making the section and putting the bit of information there was less time consuming than other options would have been. Since you are so enthusiastic about making this article better, why not incorporate the bit of information into the article yourself? John Schwa 00:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be unable to incorporate the information on Dunsany's favorite musical piece because I don't have a source that explains how (or if) it's related to his life or work. If I found out that his favorite meal was pot roast, I would have the same problem. Nareek 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what you are saying is that you don't find it a relevant piece of information in and of itself. Well, I do think it an interesting and relevant bit of information, unlike somebody's favourite meal. Somebody's interest in Beethoven, in classical music in general, tells, at least to me, a great deal about the person, and requires no "explanation". There's a difference between information and explanation (interpretation). Wikipedia needs more of the former and less of the latter. But since you're apparently interested in point-hunting and authoritative posings spiced with the appropriate amount of lazy sarcasm, and I'm not, and since it doesn't fit the good sir's vision of relevancy, by all means let's forget about the bit of information, until somebody comes along who wants to do something with it. John Schwa 17:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To explain how it is related to his life and work is either to speculate ourselves, or to quote someone else's speculation. We should avoid the first, and be watchful of the second. It is, however, quite reasonable to include the fact and let the reader speculate. Septentrionalis 01:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People often use "trivia" to mean "here's something interesting", but in this case I think a more literal meaning applies. How unusual is it for an upper-class British man in that era to like Beethoven? There was much more of a unified culture back then--there's no taste you could compare it to today in terms of genericness. Being a fan of Friends would be much more distinctive.
In general, I think Trivia sections are tacky, and a violation of Wikipedia's anti-random information policy. It seems a shame to add one to this article for such a feeble piece of trivia. Nareek 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What puts Dunsany's affection for Beethoven apart from that of the general upper class of the time is its genuineness. There's a difference between perceiving the great in art and faking your appearances to fit a set of social expectations.
I've already stated what I think about the "randomness" or relevancy of the bit of information, and since we live in a democracy...John Schwa 04:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia, actually, is not a democrary.
What's your source for the "genuineness" of Dunsany's feelings for Beethoven? Nareek 05:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While tidying this page, and removing irrelevancy about "where to find a book?" etc, was not sure about this debate. But at any rate on the last question, see several short stories, including one of his last "The Tenth Symphony."—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Books in Print[edit]

The two links somebody removed as "commercial" were the only links to non-commercial titles. You can use the cost calculator at if you don't otherwise believe that both of them are being sold for the price of the production cost and no more (this means that you pay the printing of the book, and nobody gets money for it, save the printer, and even the printer probably won't get profit worth mentioning).

Moreover, I don't think it's a bad thing to have links to editions that will stay in print for perpetuity, and are as inexpensive, yet well made, as possible. (The two titles are not "reprints", but new editions, with which I have toiled for the sole purpose of making good and inexpensive hardcover editions of Dunsany's work available: I have received no money from my work at all, and will never receive any, no matter how many copies, if any, will be sold). 16:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link removal[edit]

Hi, a query for user Requestion . I am new to Wikipedia, and notice the removal of a link from this page, which I am watching, having made some small contributions. While I do not know how long the link in question has been here - anything from days to years - I had followed it, and found it to contain meaningful commentary. Compared to the Web as a whole, Wikipedia does seem a bit light on links - one of the great powers of the Internet - notably including a lack of connectivity with the Open Directory Project and similar. But in this instance, what are the grounds for removing a specific link to a relevant page ( This would be good to understand as I move to explore more pages. Skir77 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Skir77. Yes, that link had been there for more than 3 years. I removed it because it is part of a huge spam campaign by the website owner. Chances are that the domain will be blacklisted so there isn't much point adding it back. Over the years this guy has added hundreds of spam links to Wikipedia. Very clever, it is kind of amazing that it was just recently discovered. (Requestion 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Hello Requestion, thanks for so prompt and clear an answer. Unfortunate - but good to know. I do wish people could let the volunteer projects get on, and skip the mail and link pushes. No such luck.
I took time on my first day to read most of the policy documents but it is going to take a while to get to know all the practicalities and projects - I notice you have a focus on dealing with these sorts of problems. And now to check my watched sites for today. All best, Skir77 06:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm a member of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and if you enjoy stomping out spam we'd love the help. If you'd like to read more about the uncovering of this spam campaign check out the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Spam#Request_For_Clarification_on_External_Links_Policy. It all started will some vegetable links. (Requestion 16:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I just happened today, more than two years after that was posted, to run across it. I think it takes a heckuva lot of brass to characterize links as "spam" when not a one was inappropriate to its slot. There are a lot of little nazis born into the wrong time and place for exercising their talents to the full who settle for lurking on Wikipedia and slandering people for "spamming" when their definition of "spam" is, apparently, any link not to another Wikipedia article. Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn, but it's what has caused an awful lot of good people to bail on working on Wikipedia, because life is too short for dealing with teeny-tiny jerks.Eric Walker (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copy-edits & more work to do[edit]

I did a bunch of copy-edits to try to draw some of the scattered facts together into coherent paragraphs. Work to be done:

  • The "influences" and "writers influenced by" sections need work, as well; they would be better not as bulleted lists but as narrative paragraphs, explaining and contextualizing the bulleted points. (Possibly, "influences" should be woven into the stuff about his style.)
  • There were two allusions to his themes; I put them together, but the article only discussed one of his themes (Irish identity). That should be fleshed out, and other themes need to be discussed as well.

--lquilter 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Except for Man who Ate the Phoenix, his Irishry was quite limited, especially for a writer of his generation, slightly younger than Yeats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite limited? Maybe in the early years, when his style was more alternative (though his early poems related to either Kent or Ireland, I seem to recall). But aside from the award-winning The Curse of the Wise Woman, Rory and Bran, The Story of Mona Sheehy, elements in the six Jorkens volumes, and much of The Man Who Ate the Phoenix, there is a lot of Ireland in his later stories, in his three autobiographical volumes, in the introductory material written for the photographic collection Ireland, and above all else, in My Ireland, a veritable paean to the country. Certainly, there is less of Ireland in the poems and drama, and some of the Irishness in some of the stories slips a little into "staginess" but Dunsany wrote more of Ireland than most writers (not so hard, I admit, when he wrote so much), and was both fond and sympathetic.

SeoR 12:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't thinking about the autobhiography, just the stories. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


We may be able to use O'Faolain's description of Dunsany: "odd, original, hospitable, and sensitive" (p. 353); but Dunsany's difficult mood that night is perhaps unnecessary: he objected to the salt because it had a dessicant (he'd brought home-ground rock salt: "If your butler is too lazy to grind your salt for you, he's a washout. Get rid of him at once.") the ashtray (it had an ad on it); and the cream (borax). p.352. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great idea! Views of Dunsany from other writers (O'Faolain, Yeats, and all the "inspired by" people), especially if also friends (like Gogarty) or collaborators (Colum), and especially from his contemporaries, would add some interesting insight. SeoR 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to include it. O'Faolain says that associate membership was abolished; if that's how Dunsany became a full member, we should say something like: "Dunsany was a member of the Irish Academy of Letters, originally divided into associate and full members. While an associate member..." O'Faolain does not give a date, but recalls the occasion as an award for Francis MacManus' historical novel, Traveling Men, which I cannot find. Perhaps Men Withering (1939)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not part of the debate so will not take action but I can add that Dunsany was incensed at the allocation of Associate status, and Yeats (a once close acquaintance, close enough to uniquely gather and edit a Dunsany collection) explained that it was because Dunsany's writing was not "Irish" enough. The Full Membership came after "The Curse of the Wise Woman", seen as a strong Irish contribution, as far as I can remember. Skir77 00:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An auld bastard![edit]

Just wondering can we put that in? My elderly neighbour had nothing good to say about this guy, and she did make distinctions between the local colonial lords, who in this case were the Plunketts of both Dunsany and Killeen. She was born in 1922, in Dunshaughlin, and often told the story of one Owney (sp?) Martin who worked for this guy on his estate. Apparently one day this Plunkett guy came home and everybody on the estate stood out tipping their caps and addressing him deferentially. Martin, however, who was not long in his employment, refused to do so. Dunsany asked him what was his problem and Martin responded 'The only lord I know is the lord above.' Martin lost his job. I don't know any Martins in Dunsany today, but some local might be able to attest to, or qualify, this story. 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. I hope it is allowed to remove this sort of unencyclopedic (and uncivilised) rubbish. Would be libellous if the guy were alive and while I think only a few countries prohibit such for the dead, adding rumour based on hearsay, where even the writer is not sure about the name, is wrong. I have also lived in the area, and heard a lot of good things said about the family, including by some who remembered the writer (who was, yes, pretty eccentric at times). Certainly never heard anything like the above, and they were not in the rack-renting or other nasty little games some of the "new" titled and absentee types played.
And the Plunketts (a name which originated in Ireland) think of themselves as pre-colonial, having come in with the Vikings - albeit they did do well in Pale society. But so did many others prominent in Irish history, and today! 05:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"uncivilised"- what are you, English? Give it a rest. It's 2007, not 1607. The Plunketts are Norman-Irish, not Norse-Irish. The Plunketts of Dunsany, however, were as much a part of the British colonial community as William Conolly, regardless of their origins. They became Protestant and sided, and intermarried, with the British colonial rulers, with this particular Plunkett being a diehard Unionist who organised cricket teams and opposed the GAA in the area. They were not exactly native during the Penal Laws but rather part of a privileged colonial class ruling over us. Or do you know something about this that the rest of us do not? You make the mistake of treating all Plunketts as being the same: they were no such thing. Now, please desist from such "uncivilised rubbish" regarding the history of the Plunketts in Ireland, and these Plunketts in particular. Thank you. 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This borders on abusive. But between two anonymous contributors, limited scope for registered editors to help. On the original question, that kind of rumour could only go in if written citation sources are available. And this page is not the place to have arguments about the merits of individuals or families. Such stories are never simple - the Dunsany Plunketts for example kept Killeen in trust for the other branch, and then gave it back, survived being sent to Connaught by old Cromwell, took part in some anti-establishment actions, and provided the grounds for Dunsany GAA today. 10:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not really the place for discussion on the Plunketts, or on the individual described, only for the article. On the point of the origin of the Plunketts, this is disputed, with both Norse and Norman options described - and at this distance in time, we will never know. SeoR 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Priority rating[edit]

I see this has been "tagged" as Mid-importance for the Ireland project. I was thinking that given the scale of the achievements, and how well known Dunsany was, should be higher but perhaps Mid is right for Ireland, and High in (if such exists) the Fantasy / SF+F / Speculative Fiction Project? It depends too on the spread of ratings for Irish writers and artists as a whole, if there are just 2-3 "Top" and 15-20 High, then I guess Mid is also right. 05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Film, at last![edit]

Good to see that someone has seen the light - with so much material (at least 50 of the short stories and most of the plays could fuel a film, never mind the novels), always amazed that Hollywood made so little use of Dunsany. But more must be known about this production? Anyone recommend a good source? The official family site is silent but then they are probably contractually asked to leave all PR to the film folk?? (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no new information about Dunsany films but agree that there must be more to be said. But I can confirm from Berlin the small note about Dunsany on DB trains, one nice production-
We here would also appreciate if someone could film Colonel Polders, some Smethers storeis and best of all some Jorkens80.152.156.129 (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMDB lists other productions, beyond those in the article. Should they also be here? Is surprising in one sense how little has been done cinematically with the work of pioneers such as Morris, Dunsany and Lovecraft, especially as all have vivid scenes. But none of these, nor Mirlees, excelled at human character, maybe that's it. (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't it fantastic! Finally! I think it took so long because Hollywood (and the world) had to wait for the right talents to come along to transform 'My Talks' into something performable. I don't think Alan Sharp's job can have been easy, and apparently over the years Dunsany's estate's management received many enquiries regarding optioning the rights, so I guess that means that others have tried or at least seriously thought about it.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can we have some more representative and interesting pictures. Dunsany looks well enough in the uniform but I have seen better. (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I can find someone with more photos. The article could also use some, here or in linked articles, of Ledwidge and other associates, dust jackets and other illustrations, especially Simes, and of Dunstall Priory, where much of the later, and some of the earlier, work was written. (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dog stories[edit]

Especially with the 'Dean Spanley' film now out there's going to be much more interest in his dog stories. I only know 'My Talks with Dean Spanley' well and don't own or know any of his other dog stories but I reckon a "dog stories" section - especially given the rarity of editions - is highly warranted.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert E. Howard[edit]

The section which states that Dunsany was one of Robert E. Howard's favorite authors is mistaken. The link directly states that Howard likes Dunsany, but not that Dunsany is a favorite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1938 Championship?[edit]

This article says, "Lord Dunsany played left half back for the 1938 championship winning team for Drumree." Now, to everybody around Drumree "championship winning team" implies that Eddie Plunkett was a member and player for one of his local GAA teams. But given that he's also described as "Anglo-Irish" in this article, I think we should have clarification on what sporting code "championship winning team" refers to. (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It is not a nationality, it is a class, see the and Sheodred (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 3 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Reasonable arguments from both sides, no clear consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of DunsanyLord Dunsany – Rarely referred to by his full name. This move would be following the examples of Lord Berners and Lord Byron. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also the first discussion above, #article name, and a list of pages that redirect here. --P64 (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. All hashed out back in 2007. There seems no need to revisit the issue. BPK (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Looking back at the discussion from 2007 it's unclear why the article title wasn't changed to "Lord Dunsany" at that point. --Polm23 (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Which Pakenham?[edit]

The article says attendees at his funeral included "Pakenham, Jersey and Fingal", but Pakenham isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Presumably that's the family of the Earl of Longford#Earls of Longford; Second Creation (1785)? If so, we should link that section, and ideally we'd be a bit more specific (which specific people, presumably at least some of whom will have Wikipdia articles) attended? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Dunsany's wife's sister was married to the 5th Earl of Longford. I'm not good at editing Wikipedia articles, though. (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, the Pakenham's were actually close relatives, and Dunsany wrote and made objects for them. I will reference and add something. SeoR (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Billiard room or billiards room? -- 16:07, 1 December 2017

Requested move 21 March 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move with no substantial objections. Technical move request created. (non-admin closure) Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 11:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of DunsanyLord Dunsany - per WP:COMMONNAME. Since the recently concluded Talk:Lady Gregory#Requested move 11 March 2021 resulted in the move of Augusta, Lady Gregory -> Lady Gregory, support may also exist for moving this main title header. Although there was a somewhat extended discussion, starting 15 years ago, in March 2006, at Talk:Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany#Untitled, regarding reasons for such a move, with mention of Lady Gregory among supporting examples, only one RM had been actually submitted, at above Talk:Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany#Requested move 3 January 2016, over five years ago, which ended in "no consensus". —Roman Spinner (talk o contribs) 22:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's certainly known among fantasy literature fans as "Lord Dunsany" (that title appears on the cover and spine of many publications of his fantasy works), so I would support the renaming if it's true that he's also known that way for other aspects of his life... AnonMoos (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, it may be also noted that anyone typing simply "Lord Dunsany" would be redirected to Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany. This redirect has 347 links, both templated and non-templated, and has existed for 18 years, since March 2003. It is very likely that 99 percent of users who type "Lord Dunsany" are searching for the 18th one, but all 100 percent are arriving at Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany where a hatnote advises, "Lord Dunsany" redirects here. For the peerage, see Baron of Dunsany. Thus, it would seem intuitive, based upon the overwhelming focus on this Lord Dunsany, to bypass the redirect and proceed directly. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Irish vs Anglo-Irish[edit]

Dunsany is almost the epitome of the Anglo-Irish. Born in London to an Ascendency family, mostly brought up in England, but still seeing himself as *both* Irish and British, and always keen on the Irish dimension. And his work is always identified as such in scholarship, including the deep study "Master of the Anglo-Irish Imagination." The fact that Encyclopedia Britannica has been revised to mention him as solely Irish - in a tiny article, far less comprehensive or referenced than this one - speaks only to the weaknesses of that publication, not to any change in reality. For some of their better work, see The Irishness of Anglo-Irish literature, and later parts of that page. What next, try to reclassify Swift (a bridge too far) or Edgeworth as only Irish? (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Lord Dunsany (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lord Dunsany (redirect) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 2#Lord Dunsany (redirect) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does “I.A.” stand for?[edit]

in the bibliography —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamfang: In Lord Dunsany: A Comprehensive Bibliography, the section "Works by Dunsany in English" is headed "I.". In that, the sub-section containing a list of Books by Dunsany is labeled "A." and the sub-section Contributions to Books and Periodicals is labelled "B."; etc.
You can see the table of contents at Google Books. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]