Talk:Oscar Wilde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Oscar Wilde has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Woman's World[edit]

It was said on Front Row tonight (November 24 2017) that Oscar Wilde was the first editor of Woman's World. If anybody can find reliable sources for this, it could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your post Vorbee. The item you mention is covered in the second paragraph of the Oscar Wilde#Journalism and editorship: 1886.E2.80.9389 section of the article. Any changes or additions that you think fit could be made there. MarnetteD|Talk 19:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oscar Wilde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

§ Regina v. Wilde is a Mess[edit]

This section is very confusing and unclear. Someone knowledgable of these events and a good legal background should do a re-write, because I can't follow it, despite being well-read. The basic facts of the case are particularly convoluted here. Lukacris (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What specifically is unclear?Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The presentation of the case's facts and Wilde's reaction. I am unfamiliar with this subject and this section left me confused. In particular:
  • I think the section intends to say that the testimony from the preceding libel trial (that Wilde had engaged in sodomy) was the object of his prosecution, but that is not stated plainly within the section, and I don't know what testimony in particular gave rise to the prosecution.
  • Why are Ross and Douglass presented as characters in the story? Were they complicit in the charges?
  • What's the relevance of the butler who retrieved Wilde's personal effects?
  • It also seems like there's more to the "the love that dare not speak its name" bit— does that phrase have a backstory?
  • Why couldn't the jury reach a verdict? A hung jury or some other kind of mistrial?
  • Why were there two trials? Was it a retrial due to the first ending in a hung jury? Were there separate crimes?
  • What sort of evidence came out in these trials?
  • What was the publicity like? The section talks of Wilde's hiding and attempts to flee, but I don't understand enough of the context to follow why Wilde's actions here are relevant.
Also, there are about four-thousand too many semicolons. Lukacris (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

POV / chauvinist to say Wildes's parents were Anglo-Irish?[edit]

I can't see any substance in this and await explanation from 75.161.53.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whom I have warned for edit warring. William Avery (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Am laughing at the usual wiki-lizardian attempt at bullying. In the lede it clearly states Irish poet and playwrite. Similar in that boxy thing. Bio sections later discuss his ancestry. Nuff said? Introducing "Anglo-Irish" in the lede is at best ancillary and incomplete (Italian?). At worst 'tis chauvinistic (in this case read that as nationalistically self serving--I am being clear in case you do not understand big words). Now who are you and are you an alias of the other guy that has reverted me twice so far and is afraid in case I know the rules? 75.161.53.1 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to file an allegation of sock puppetry please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. William Avery (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I would neither know nor care to know how to do that. [Frankly your bullying behavior disgusts me.] Do you dispute my edit? 75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Looked up what a sock puppet is. Laughing. Imagine being a member of a community that has terms for such things. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what "rules" you claim to know but the following are a few Wikipedia policies that apply in this situation. A) Consensus of over a decade for the terms use in the article. B) It comes from numerous reliable sources. C) WP:NOTCENSORED. There is nothing wrong with the term. MarnetteD|Talk 22:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Ahhhh the other guy. Tag teaming? (A) Lots of things have stood for many years that were incorrect. (B) The appropriate place to address the details of Mr. Wilde's ancestry is in the bio section not the lede. (C) Do you have a third stooge waiting to come in to back you up? 75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
PS I did not question the rightfulness or usefulness of the term. Just where it was placed. Perhaps you can squeeze it into the bio section to make you feel better. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Laughing. Now that you know I do not know how to report you (perhaps both of you) for 3 verting you go ahead. Do you want me to find someone to come in? I do now know how do do that but MarnetteD reverted me at least 3 times. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep it up. Why No one trusts wikipedia anymore. Kinda like a version of trumpism. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You will have to report me. Maybe one of you is an admin...oh my scared. And then they will read this stuff and say block the IP and I will be right....and back. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could address the substantive point, of your objection to the use of 'Anglo-Irish'. Is your contention that it cannot be applicable if somebody has partial ancestry of a different race? i.e. It's a strict racial category, rather than a cultural one. William Avery (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
As noted, I only suggest it was inappropriately placed. Better discussed in bio section. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Then why didn't you just move it to where you think it would be appropriate? --Marbe166 (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Et tu Brute? If I had moved it instead of deleting it, do you think this would not have arisen? 75.161.53.1 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
As someone else has pointed out, Anglo-Irish is the generally used term for a certain class of Irish people, particularly at that time, which Wilde's family is usually described as being part of. You don't even explain why you think the term is chauvinistic or inapt. Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
As you should know (if you read above) I did not object to the term just its placement. See GBS etc. It is chauvinsitic to put it into the lede where it was (and you know why it is there no?). What I have said again and again. Talk about his ancestry in the appropriate section. As I have hinted..why not put his Italian ancestry into the lede? Because might be too much detail there? 75.161.53.1 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Chauvinist: (adj.) showing or relating to excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for a particular group or cause." Explain how that applies here. I don't think anyone understands what you're talking about. Lukacris (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think their argument is lost amongst the lack of good faith and rationale they are providing. Mabuska (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably, but I thought I'd give William Avery another shot. Lukacris (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The desire now expressed, merely to move 'Anglo-Irish' from the lead to the biography section, is difficult to the reconcile with the reaction to the edit being challenged. Reminiscent of WP:LAME, and conflicts with the actual edit made. I only acted to halt an edit war, and don't have a strong opinion about the matter. William Avery (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
What is the reason for your objection? What is chauvinist about the current version? It is not obvious to us; help us understand. Lukacris (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
In case it's not clear: I started this discussion after reverting an edit by anon 75.161.53.1, because I wanted anon to explain their assertion that the current version is chauvinist. William Avery (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood who was doing what. Carry on. Lukacris (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)