Talk:Oscar Wilde

Expect influx of editing - frontpage of Google

Document changes here. - Pushkin

Libertarian socialism and Wilde

The category "Libertarian socialists" has been removed from the article, and I agree. His The Soul of Man under Socialism gets the closest to libertarian socialism, but Wilde himself steps back from fully embracing the concept or the practice. Wilde was definitely a socialist, and he had libertarian streaks, but the two did not come together to form a solid political position.

The issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that there are sources such as Bonnie S. McDougall in Fictional authors, imaginary audiences: modern Chinese literature in the twentieth century indicating Wilde's contribution to libertarian socialism. Geoffrey Wheatcroft writes in The Atlantic that "Wilde was really preaching not state socialism but a form of libertarianism in a world free from want". George Woodcock writes in Oscar Wilde: the double image that "in these writings there are traces, not merely of his reading of anarchist books, but also of his connection with William Morris and other libertarian Socialists on the verge of anarchism." We have socialism for certain, libertarianism to a degree, and "traces" of the two together. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Bolting Wilde into political categories is difficult, it was not his primary or even secondary occupation nor did he ever firm solid views. The article has seen persistent attempts in recent months to adopt him as a poster boy for socialism or anarachism, or some combination of these. New material and views on Wilde is of course welcome, and the article remains imperfect but often these edits have introduced errors or unsourced material: here the GA reviewer protests and [[1]] the same claim is entered, unreferenced, again introducing errors and changing the meaning of the lead.

Wilde's was interested in politics only so much as it affected art, so the article must place his interest in it properly in context. Secondly new analysis should contain scholarly (academic books and journals first; then reliable mainstream high brow journals; partisan blogs, websites or magazines are not acceptable) comment on his biography or writings. His chief political piece is "The Soul of Man", I have found relatively little criticism on it, does anyone have any pointers please? --Ktlynch (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that wilde was only interesting in socialism and/or anarchism when it affected art. If you read the soul of man, you will see he describes it in relation to the human condition. Much wider than just its meaning in regards to art. ValenShephard (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wilde repeatedly expressed the philosophy that art was superior to life, and that life should be modelled on it. "The secret of life is art" he said in America. Socialism, or his conception of it - the essay contains "not an ounce of economic theory" as one commentator said - was only important in so much as it freed man from property, paid employment, family, social obligations, etc, "the sordid neccessity of living for others" so that he might live purely to pursue artistic creation in whatever way he sees fit. The Soul of Man [Under Socialism] (the last two words are omitted in some publications) is an important essay, but I object to him being characterised as a socialist in the lead, it is misleading. The leads describes him as a writer, and he wrote an essay about social conditions. Kiberd (2000) has a good treatment of this theme and I would like to incorporate more of his analysis on the intersection of politics and art and attitudes into the article. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

He's the "mascot", so to speak, of Uncyclopedia. Shouldn't this be mentioned here?--FifthCylon (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. Please see archive three above. This has been discussed numerous times over the years and the consensus is that it is not encyclopedic and is not to be included here at wikiP. The OW at Uncyclopedia has virtually nothing to do with the man covered in this article. Other input is welcome of course but I would still be against its inclusion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Sic

The {{sic}} template is just a special form of wikilink. Following a recent edit there are now three of them within a short space and it seems to me that the article's previous version, with only one, had plenty. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is only justification for using "sic" if without it a reader might mistake what is written for a typo. There is no danger of that as the context is a discussion of what was written and what might have been intended. They are an ugly distraction and I would get rid of all of them.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the sic template as it allows for the offending word to be broken up and inserted within the template, a foil against spell checker bots. The method looks like this: {{sic|Som|domite}}.

As far as links being near each other; one is in an image blurb, one in the article body, one in a footnote, and one in alt text (where I am not certain of its usefulness.) Those separate areas of the article can easily contain redundant wikilinks, as there are readers who will only look at images, and the footnotes are far from the article body. Regarding them being an ugly distraction, I don't see it. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That explanation about keeping the 'bots at bay was useful: I couldn't work out what you were doing. Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sic is antique, pedantic and not needed in this context. It distracts and confuses many contemporary readers because they don't know what it means. Bots can be kept at bay by using the sic template but hiding the word "sic", like this: {{sic|hide=y|Somdomite}}. Where so many sics are used in such proximity the link to the sic article should be suppressed using {{sic|Som|domite|nolink=1}}. At least that's what I understand from template:sic.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion's over but a few points: 1) Most people know what "sic" means. 2) If a reader doesn't, he can click the wikilink to find out. That's the whole point of the encyclopedia. 3) It is important to note in the context of article that one of the principals involved in the incident misspelled his accusation. 4) "Sic" is repeated because the article itself used the word, which is obviously spelled correctly, but when quoting the Marquis his original misspelling must be used. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented Alistair Stevenson's suggestion about suppressing repeated sic links. The second one had been in a repetition of the caption within the alt text, I've also deleted this sentence. That leaves only one "sic", in the article which, I think, is neither too hot, nor too cold, but just right.--Ktlynch (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

The Complete Letters (2000) are listed in the bibliography section at the end, but the names of the editors (Merlin Holland and Sir Rupert Hart-Davis) do not show up. They are visible in the editing screen, and I assume the problem lies in the coding of the citation formatting. Does anyone know how to correct this error? Tim riley (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I simplified, just using "editor=". Does that work for you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's better! Thank you. - Tim riley (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Oscar Wilde|p00547m3}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

The program is quite good, I'm adding it now. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange effect

André Gide, on whom Wilde had such a strange effect,

What effect was that, there is nothing on Gide's article either that explains this cryptic statement. --86.161.73.164 (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Gilsey House

He apparently liked to stay at the Gilsey House in New York, can that be included somewhere? Gryffindor (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

children

apart from mentioning his wife's second pregnancy, there is no mention in the main article of his offspring. Can someone add detail please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.92.219 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They are mentioned in this section Oscar Wilde#London life and marriage and the fact that he did not see them again after his arrest is mentioned in the "exile" section. MarnetteD | Talk 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

• There are two sentences on this page that give completely unclear items of information:

1. "In seeking to justify Lord Queensberry's description of Wilde as a poseur, he [Carson] allowed Wilde to strike poses, which the latter did." Is this showing that based on what a poseur is, Carson (as joke based off a pun on the word "pose") allowed Wilde to make silly poses in front of the court? What is the relevance of this? If it is relevant, why isn't there a bit more description: for example, adding "for comedic effect" (assuming that the relevance of this is to demonstrate Wilde's flippant, humorous nature)? It doesn't seem to make any sense that a serious lawyer would tell a witness to "strike poses" in front of a court for comedic effect, unless I'm misinterpreting the phrase here. What exactly does this phrase mean?
2. "Wilde, who had long alluded to Greek love, and – though an adoring father – was put off by the carnality of his wife's second pregnancy, succumbed to Ross in Oxford in 1886." Well what does "succumb" mean here? Initiated a series of sexual encounters? Began a long-standing romantic relationship? Had one instance of sex with him (a "single succumbing")? Why so vague, as if merely alluding to something sexual? There's no need to be vague. This is meant to be a comprehensible biography.

Wolfdog (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Trialling a recast of sentence one, closer to the source. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think #2 is weird. --131.220.251.18 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

John Gray & (briefly) Robbie Ross

I know that at one point there was proper criticism for this article being too much about Wilde's sexuality. Then good work was put in by several editors including Ktlynch and Old Moonraker to balance things out. Somewhere in all this work the name of John Gray (poet) seems to have disappeared. I think that Gray merits some mention - both as a someone special to Wilde before his relationship with Douglas - and as the possible inspiration for Dorian Gray. I know that the latter is disputed by some biographers due to the fact the novel was serialised in Lippencott's before Wilde's recorded relationship with Gray began but even that might merit a brief mention - or at least a footnote.

As to Ross I think we cover his importance in Wilde's life while Oscar was alive pretty well, but, I am wondering of we might give a brief mention his role in protecting Wilde's literary legacy and his work in paying off Wilde's debts.

Now I wouldn't even begin to be WP:BOLD and add these items since I am not insisting on their addition. I would also want the input of other editors who have worked on this page - and indeed those who haven't but who might see this message. I am just trying to open a dialog about the ongoing, ever changing evolution of this article. My thanks ahead of time for any that add their input. MarnetteD | Talk 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Catholicism and Douglas in the lead

It looks like there has been some back-and-forth editing over the inclusion of Wilde's conversion to Catholicism near the end of his life and mentioning Douglas. It seems obvious to me that both are important factors in his life and ought to appear in the lead.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The mention of Douglas is okay and I was in error in removing it. The conversion is not. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to something that Wilde had varying views of over the course of his life. Even the others who were in the room as he was dieing have different views on whether he was able to understand what was happening. It gets its proper mention in the section about his death. MarnetteD | Talk 16:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In which case, the passive voice may be more appropriate than the active. But it's not undue weight to mention it in the lead. However personally distasteful I may find the action, I recognise that it's a signficant fact about his life. Anecdotally, if I were to summarise his biography off the top of my head, his (re)turn to Catholicism in the last years of his life would be one of the bullet points.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not a significant fact of his life as he was not a practitioner of that faith at any point in it. How to you return to a religion that you have not been a member of and where is the evidence that he turned to it in the last "years" of his life. It is a slight fact of his death and, again, it is disputed that he was aware of the conversion. MarnetteD | Talk 19:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Douglas should be mentioned, but his death-bed conversion hardly bears any significance. As to adding it purely because it is a well known anectode... So is the story about Newton and the apple, but it hardly makes it correct or encyclopaedic content. Weaxzezz (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I should have thought that the long list of references in the index of Ellmann's biography would be the more compelling reason to add it, as well as providing the many citations necessary to establish its encyclopaedic justification. Wilde's eagerness near the end of his life to kiss the pope's ring is a nodal point in Dollimore's account of Wilde's life too, if I remember rightly.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Portrayals in the media

I'm somewhat surprised that there is no section on portrayals of Wilde in the media in this article. Many, if not most, articles on well-known people who have been essayed in film, on television or on radio have that information listed. It's especially surprising in the case of Oscar Wilde, given that he has been the central character of at least three feature films (The Trials of Oscar Wilde, Oscar Wilde and Wilde), a play (Oscar Wilde), and a dramatised television series (Oscar). iMDb lists several more appearances of the character of Wilde in film and television, played by everyone from Robert Morley to Tim Curry [2]. Shouldn't there be a section of the article on this, as there is with other people portrayed in the media? Grutness...wha? 12:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What you are looking for is here Biographies of Oscar Wilde and we do have a link to that article from this one. MarnetteD | Talk 13:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add that if you dig into the edit history of this article circa 06 or 07 you will find a fairly long Pop Culture section but Wikipedia's move away from those around 07-08 pared it down to what we have now. Notability is always a spot of contention with these but at least the info is there if you are willing to take some time to search for it. MarnetteD | Talk 13:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can understand that for a character like Wilde a pop culture section might soon get unmanageable and go too far into the trivia, but not having any mention of it at all in the article seems surprising. I saw the biographies section and its link to the separate article, but it dealt entirely with books on the subject (perhaps understandably). Perhaps adding a paragraph to that section on other media to at least give some indication that the article Biographies of Oscar Wilde also deals with films and television may be appropriate? Grutness...wha? 01:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least one film is mentioned in the biographies section, there is definitely far more interest in that medium concerning wilde then him on film. Though called Biographies, the section deals with a sort of histiography of Wilde, there are films and plays mentioned in the sub-article. I would tend to agree with MarnetteD and be very reluctant to insert a section with that title. At the least there would have to be a scholarly, secondary source. Though I remian open to finding ways to incorporate this information in the family of Wilde articles. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox nationality and ethnicity

I recently altered the infobox to include the ethnicity parameter as declaring Oscar Wilde as being of Irish nationality is wrong as he was born in the United Kingdom and thus a British national. I added the ethnicity parameter to however highlight that he was of Irish ethnicity. As the lede can be assumed to state that he is of Irish ethnicity rather than nationality, i thought it wouldn't be controverisal

I was wrong it seems, and it appears there is a consensus (so i'm told) that he's of Irish nationality despite the fact thats impossible as there was never an Irish state for him to be a citizen/national of. Due to this ambiguity of the lede, i assumed there would be no harm in giving more clear and concise information in the infobox where we can state that he was both Irish AND British (something thats not impossible) thus satisfying both camps.

And yes i appreciate that he was an Irish nationalist, however did he actually abandon his British citizenship and adopt a different one for him to no longer actually be a British national? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

According to whom? His biographers agree he was Irish. Ireland was colonised at the time, it was still a country. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Try telling a Scotsman he's not Scottish and a Welshman he's not Welsh, and you'll get two lovely black eyes. Myrvin (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ireland was not an independant sovereign country with its own parliament when Oscar Wilde lived. From the start of the 19th century it was a region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, just like England, Scotland, and Wales all of which were under one parliament and that makes him a British national by birth. WP:MOSBIO states we should state their nationality according to the nationality laws of their country, and well in the UK that is British regardless of the persons personal opinion or his biographers.

He is Irish in ethnicity as he was born in Ireland, but he can't be an Irish national or citizen as it didn't exist as a country on its own right in the sense that the Republic of Ireland exists today. Reason why i'm not challenging the use of "Irish" in the lede is because according to WP:MOSBIO you can state ethnicity in the lede if its relevant to the topic of the article, and whilst its not marked upon much in the article, Oscar Wilde was a passionate Irish nationalist, so it can be deemed relevant. This however doesn't override his actual nationality, which can be easily stated in the infobox, with Irish used where it actually applied to him in the real world of his time - the ethnicity part. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

America

Is there some reason why the "Irish writer" of the lead becomes "the most charming English aesthete" in America: 1882? Myrvin (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Good spot, I changed it to most charming of the English aesthetes", which I think was what was originally intended. He represented the movement as it developed in that country, but he himself was not from England. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I went back in the history abit, it seemed "English" was added in sometime in the last year. It could be dropped again. Best --Ktlynch (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiatus between accounts of 2nd and 3rd court cases

The article needs at least another sentence to explain how we get from Wilde being found not guilty, being released and going into hiding to being in court for a third time. Carson's conversation with the Solicitor General starts doesn't fully cover it.Costesseyboy (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

German

The article states correctly that "Wilde requested, among others: the Bible in French, Italian and German grammars, some Ancient Greek texts". The reason for this was his ambition to learn the German language. He did not however find the time or inclination to do so.

An earlier pasasage in the article about Wilde learning German as a child is, as far as i know, not correct.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wilde learned German as a boy but it was later largely forgotten though lack of use (though he undoubtedly sometimes read its literature). This is cited to Ellmann's biography. The line you quote refers to much later, in the final period of his imprisonment when, planning his exile so took up again his study of the language. "German" was recently added to the languages tab in the infobox, this is not correct since that refers to languages in which he wrote. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit of a jump?

The lede seems to jump rather precipitately from Wilde's civil action against Queensberry to his own conviction and imprisonment. A recent edit, now deleted, seemed to bridge the gap quite nicely. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As User:MarnetteD points out, we've sacrificed some brevity but it's now fixed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding here sooner - I didn't see this thread when you opened it yesterday OM. I know I might be too pedantic about this but I feel that it is important to note that there were three trials. All too often the two "gross indecency" trials get lumped into one and some media even leave the impression that he was sent straight to gaol/jail (per WP:ENGVAR :->) at the end of the libel trial. Thanks for your work on this and while we may have worked towards a version that we are happy with if anyone feels that it can be improved on please do so. MarnetteD | Talk 15:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Echoing: this fix need not be the last word.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Early baptism

It seems that we may need to address this speculation that Wilde had a baptism at an early age. All I can say is that I cannot remember any of the biographers - either those that knew him like Frank Harris, those that interviewed those who knew him like Hesketh Pearson, or those that came later like Ellman - mentioning this. I have not read anything by his grandson Merlin Holland mentioning this either. Though I would be interested if he has had any reaction to it recently. I have also read the complete letters and yes several of them refer to his admiration for the church but none mention this early conversion - and yes "complete" only means those that were found through 2000 the year of the reissue.

The main mentions on the net of this possibility seem to all use the same (or variations of) this statement;

Whether Oscar Wilde converted on his deathbed may be an irrelevance. Apparently Wilde’s mother, an unbeliever, had arranged his baptism at the age of four or five by Rev. L.C. Fox of Dublin to spite Oscar's father. Because it was done privately, it was never registered.

But there does not seem to be any empirical evidence to back this up.

My studies lead me to believe that this early baptism, while not 100% impossible, is highly unlikely. However, this is all WP:SPECULATION and WP:OR on my part. If any editors have other research or thoughts that they can bring to this please add it to this thread and we will begin working towards some consensus regarding this and any relevance that it might have to the article. Thanks ahead of time for your input. MarnetteD | Talk 22:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic church is usually very scrupulous about registering baptisms by its priests as they keep all records of subsequent life events (confirmation, marriage(s) etc.) associated with the original baptismal record. If Wilde had been baptised by a Catholic priest, then the record should exist. However, they also agree that any baptised Christian (even an Anglican for example) can baptise another person provide they use a simple formula like "I baptise you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spririt". The priest who baptised Wilde on his deathbed would have made it conditional as he had no knowledge of any previous baptism or means of finding a Church record and doctrinally baptism can only be administered once. He may even have assumed that Wilde could have had a Church of Ireland baptism as an infant which would have been valid in Catholic eyes. Dabbler (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The scrupulousness of baptismal record keeping is beside the point, scads of reliable sources note both Wilde's recollection of the baptism and the priests recollection. Richard Ellman says he thinks the childhood baptism in fact did take place. Patrick Horan says the baptism was never registered. Numerous reliable sources report it (indeed many of the most notable biograpies) and it is appropriately in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Scads" and "numerous" are just words that you are using and not actual evidence or quotes from these biographies.. The Horan that you link to says that this "supposedly" happened and he does not go any further as to whether he has any other evidence of it or even that he agrees that it occurred. As to Ellman he theorized that this early baptism took place not that he had any evidence to confirm it. He also theorized that Wilde had syphilis without any evidence and that has been refuted by subsequent scholars. MarnetteD | Talk 23:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole section needs to be struck off and my apologies to Mamalujo for having typed it in the first place. My memory is completely at fault here and again apologies to all. Don't forget to raise a glass of your favorite libation this Sunday to celebrate Oscar's 157th. MarnetteD | Talk 04:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I should add that, depending on what other editors think, there might be some place to mention the speculation over this baptism if WP:UNDUE can be avoided but a category like "Catholic Poets" should not be added because it is WP:SPECULATION that a baptism ever occurred and then WP:SYNTHESIS that somehow made Wilde a catholic poet. MarnetteD | Talk 00:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the baptism did or didn't take place - the article doesn't either. (It already is in the article - under his death) It merely addresses it in the same fashion as do most biographies that touch on the subject. As to the category. I'm perfectly happy with leaving that category out, it's not that big a deal. Although, I have seen Wilde listed in more than one anthology of Catholic poets and often seen some of his works referred to as deeply Catholic. THe dipute is fair because most of his life he was a dilletante to the faith. Mamalujo (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My point about the record keeping is that any baptism performed by a Catholic priest should have been recorded and while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is an indication whether or not it ever really took place or was it a "false memory" implanted in Wilde when he was a child. Is there any evidence that he, in any significant way, lived a "Catholic life" or just had a Catholic death? Dabbler (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a childhood baptism occurred or not. We don't use the standards of a particular religion to determine whether or not to put an article on a person in a religion category - eg. we do not include everyone with a Jewish mother in "Jews." Dabbler is right in that we would need to find evidence that he identified or practiced as Catholic throughout his life. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've not the biographies on hand (going to the library tomorrow), but many mention this incident: it wouldn't have been recorded since it apparently took place in private, which any Catholic priest can do if he so wishes. It is frequently referenced in critical appraisals of his work, regarding, for example, the desire to change identities in The Importance of Being Earnest. Plenty of other evidence suggests that Wilde retained a deep interest in the Catholic church and faith throughout his life and that he was deeply influenced by its teachings. One doesn't make deathbed conversions on a whim, he had intended to do so many years before, reproached from at the gravity of it, but later sincerely came back toward it, especially after his conviction. I agree that we shouldn't use torah law to judge people, but Wilde was influenced in a significant way by Catholicism. As a wikipedian I have often found disputes over categories silly; I'm not sure such endless cross-categorisation ('left-handed gay jews, etc.) helps anyone. Wilde was fairly Catholic though, he was also French, Irish, Athenian, etc.,--Ktlynch (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I just found that Oscar Wilde was apparently baptised into the Anglican church at St. Mark's Church, Dublin on 26 April 1854. The record is claimed to be held in the successor church St. Ann's Church, Dawson Street also in Dublin. I suspect that the date given is erroneous, possibly 1855 as it is before Wilde's birthdate.Dabbler (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC) For an English lawyer's critique of the Wilde trials see 'Feasting with Panthers' in my book, Intolerance, Wildy, Simmonds and Hill, 2008. ISBN 9780854900251. Lake Rudyard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lake rudyard (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of language

In the entry about Oscar Wilde, "succumbed to Ross" is not a neutral statement. I refer particularly to the word "succumbed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclennan123 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done a change. Myrvin (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't agree it's non-neutral, you'll find that language in numerous sources. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

But not in the source quoted - unless it's elsewhere. Myrvin (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Logic and Syntax

Here is Wikipedia on Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray":

The first version of The Picture of Dorian Gray was published as the lead story in the July 1890 edition of Lippincott's Monthly Magazine, along with five others.[77] The story begins with a man painting a picture of Gray. When Gray, who has a "face like ivory and rose leaves" sees his finished portrait he breaks down, distraught that his beauty will fade, but the portrait stay[s] beautiful, inadvertently making a Faustian bargain.

Let me simply note that a portrait cannot make "a Faustian bargain." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclennan123 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked. What's possibly needed, in addition, is some reference to what happens to the image to explain what the bargain is, e.g., "the portrait stays beautiful, inadvertently making a Faustian bargain in which only the painted image grows old". Don't forget WP:BOLD! --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No dissent? Added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Moonraker

Good change for section about Dorian Gray, Moonraker. Thanks for making it. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)