Talk:Oscar Wilde/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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)

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)

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)

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)

And User:Myrvin! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Logic and Syntax Again

From Wikipedia: Constance's [Wilde's] annual allowance of £250 was generous for a young woman (it would be equivalent to about £19,300 in current value).

[B]ut the Wildes' tastes were relatively luxurious and, after preaching to others for so long, their home was expected to set new standards of design.[51]

Strictly speaking, a home cannot be "expected tlo set new standards of design." People, in this case the Wildes, set the new standards. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the design of their home can set a new standard; or their home can be a standard...I don't see the problem, where is the syntatical problem? --Ktlynch (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The grammatical problem with ". . . after preaching to others for so long, their home was expected . . . " is that it means their home had been preaching.

How about something like " . . . the Wildes' tastes were relatively luxurious, and they had preached (or been preaching) to others for so long on the subject of design, that people expected their home to set new standards [of design]."

Awien (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of objection, made the change. Awien (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Somdomite" wikilink

It's only a point of wiki-pedantry (of which manifestations of pedantry there are few more pedantic) but somdomite shouldn't be wikilinked to sodomite in the transcription of Queensberry's note. See "[i]tems within quotations should not generally be linked" in WP:MOSLINK#General points on linking style. The issue seems to be that to assume this is what the writer meant is an interpretation by a WP editor. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Good call, Old Moonraker; I've made the change as suggested. "Sodomy" is linked just beside in the main text. It's also doubtful whether it needs to be at all. There is also a risk of confusion and excess, give the quotation already has a reference, a "[sic]" and an explanatory footnote. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for both fixes. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Quiz challenge

Can anybody else spot what is wrong with "Bound in a rich, enamel, parchment cover (embossed with gilt blossom) and printed on hand-made Dutch paper, Wilde would present many copies to the dignitaries and writers who received him over the next few years"? --John (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Given Wilde's penchant for extravagant styles of dress, obviously there's nothing wrong with the sentence at all, apart from the need for a reference. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's quite a hilarious image once you see it. --John (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it the wording " would present many"? I mean what did he do - give each dignitary and writer 5 or 6 copies? I have a vision of Wilde bring a crate of books with him to each event. If not then "the suspense is killing me I do hope it will last" MarnetteD | Talk 15:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As OM saw, the way the sentence is constructed implies that the subject of the sentence is Wilde, thus he was "Bound in a rich, enamel, parchment cover..." and so on. I became much better at spotting these ambiguities since I taught it in a course a couple of years ago. This is the most hilarious one I have removed, as (per OM again), given Wilde's character, it is almost possible to imagine that he may have dressed up like this. --John (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah thanks for filling me in. Perhaps he wore the "rich enamel parchment" at Alfred Taylor's brothel :-). Not only am I seven hours behind you both when it comes to editing but "slow on the uptake" on this particular, delightful, absurdity. It does still read to my eyes like he presented more than one copy to each person, but that is just me. As ever thanks to you both for your vigilance of this article. MarnetteD | Talk 17:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war about The Ballad of Reading Gaol

This needs to be discussed. I have already stated that my own opinion that 'harsh reality' is a cliché. I don't see that 'lengthy' has any advantage over 'long' either. William Avery (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment WA. The version before the edits of the IP from NY also fits better with the overall tone of the article. MarnetteD | Talk 22:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a change proposed by one anonymous IP poster who has been changing the previous consensus wording. Until I hear some reason why this should be changed, I will not agree to the change. Dabbler (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's pleasant to stumble upon an imaginatively written, while still informative, phrase in Wikipedia. Retain the original, please. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the consensus here to retain the original. It's quite clear that the editor is working in good faith, I would like to see him join discussions here about how to improve the article in bigger ways. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Earnest

I read this section in detail fo rthe first time and have some criticisms.

• The first paragraph seems almost wholly negative, considering this is still one of Wilde's most popular plays.
• I have been speaking English for over 60 years and even I don't know what "cultivés" are. The word is not in my Chambers.

It needs to be rewritten and the first paragrapgh moved down. Also, someone with a copy of The Cambridge Companion should check that it says all this about the play. If not, most of the first paragraph is OR. Myrvin (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Awards and Honors

In 2011, Oscar Wilde was honored by the University of Oxford, his alma mater, as one of its 100 most distinguished members from 10 centuries. Other honorees include Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Saint Thomas More, John Locke, Adam Smith, Christopher Wren, Lawrence of Arabia, J.R.R. Tolkien and living University members Rupert Murdoch, Bill Clinton, Stephen Hawking and Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. For the cover of the 2011 Prospectus, Oxford University named 100 streets in Oxford historical center after these distinguished graduates. Soandso Street was renamed for Oscar Wilde

I am pasting this section which I've removed here in case anyone one wants to discuss it. It's not really appropriate for Wikipedia since it's not based on scholarly research. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to see your name again K - I hope that you are well. Since the item is unsourced removal was the right thing to do. If it can be sourced it might merit a small mention but we certainly wouldn't need to mention the other recipients as they are not relevant to this article. Is/was there a street named Soandso ? One other thing - per WP:ENGVAR it is "Honours". Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious?

The article has a great deal of excellent information, but I find it rather tendentious overall - it concentrates on Wilde the penitent felon and downplays the hedonist. For example, it speaks of his "weeping" when refused a Catholic retreat on his release from jail, but ignores the fact that his first action in France was to have sex with an underage girl in a brothel ("an experience he likened to cold mutton - "the first girl I had these many years, and it will be the last!") And there are sentences like this: "He spent much time wandering the Boulevards alone..." Yes indeed, and what do you think he was doing on those boulevards? He wasn't out there for the fresh air. Wilde was a mix of the spiritual and the carnal, and this article seriously unbalances the reality. PiCo (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Portrayals in the media

(out of place comment by someone too lazy to do it properly: I just noticed there's no mention of his Children's Book, "The Selfish Giant" in the main article. Could someone do that please?

Normal comments resume now: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.19.254 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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 [1]. 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)

Bizarre tone

I made a quite proper edit, removing the word "vicious" from the expression "vicious homosexuality". This entry on Wilde is not meant to recreate the late 19th century as a sort of prose poem, or to use homophobic expressions unless those expressions are taken from quoted material. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in case anybody hasn't noticed. An editor, who plainly feels ownership of the page has reinstated, without evidence as far as I can tell, the assertion that Wilde was accused of involving young men in "vicious homosexuality". I do not know what vicious homosexuality is, and I do not know what anybody could ever have meant by it. If somebody can find where the expression was used, I would say, by all means put it back in quotes. Then we would know.

I might add that I think the entire tone of this entry is quite out of keeping with an encyclopedia. I'm not sure if this tone has been picked up by plagiarising old biographies of Wilde but, if so it shouldn't. IMO, somebody would do us all a favour by re-writing the whole thing as an encyclopedia entry. Bluehotel (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I would add that the article makes bizarre generalizations, such as that Wilde's young men were "uneducated" and "knew nothing of literature". Says who? Some of them might have been, most of them might have been, or all of them might have been. But how would anybody know? If somebody knew, for example, Ross, and said so, then the article should quote them as saying so, and not make generalizations that amount to original research a century after the fact. This article reads like a very old man's musings from about 1920. Bluehotel (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No it wasn't proper. First, wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Your entire reasoning shows a desire to sanitize the article using 20th and 21st century sensibilities. You seem to think that using reliable sources is plagiarizing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The article is sourced to a wide range of biographies written over a number of years. You would do well to read them. To get a sense of how things were in the 1890s read what the judge said when handing out Wilde's sentence. The article is written in an encyclopedic manner and has been worked on by dozens (if not hundreds) of editors over the years. You may not like the wording - I do not like it either and I thank heavens that we have moved beyond it - but no one will be able to understand how far we have come unless it is explained how things were. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that, per WP:BRD you need to form a WP:CONSENSUS for the changes that you wish to make. At the moment that does not exist. Your next steps are WP:3O or WP:RFC. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this has achieved Good article status by meeting Good article criteria. That would not have happened if it had the "bizarre" tone that you have ascribed to it. MarnetteD|Talk 20:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Then let's give other editors the opportunity to consider this matter. You are not the custodian of this page. Much of the language of this article is written in the mind-set of the very attitudes that led to Wilde's persecution. Let us give an analogous use of language. Would Wikipedia, for example, include hate speech language such as "During his life people thought that Richard Wright was an upitty n****r". No it wouldn't. As for what Wilde is remembered for, there can be no question that he is remembered jointly for his writing and for his position as a gay man who was as out as it was possible to be without going to jail, and indeed he did go to jail. He is unquestionably an icon of the gay liberation movement of the 20th century, and this vastly exceeds his stature as the author of Dorian Gray.

But let us allow other people to have their say, rather than you being alerted on your mobile and reverting things at a few minutes notice. Bluehotel (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

I saw "Wilde" once, that´s about the extent of my knowledge on this subject, but I find it a little strange that this article don´t have a "Legacy" section. Is there a reason besides that nobody wrote one? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible item for this proposed section: I heard it said (maybe on BBC radio) that no child was named 'Oscar' in England for 75 years following his death. Unfortunately I cannot provide a reference for this factoid. Old Aylesburian (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Fox (footballer born 1921) Unibond (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding removal of OWSOA link

Is the edit summary here enough to justify removing that link? Do we just trust that the editor is who s/he claims to be? I'm inclined to leave it out, if only because the site actually doesn't appear to be currently active, lending credence to the claims in the edit summary. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your post HG. While the edit summary may or may not be accurate Spycoops has been around for some time as a productive editor so I think we can AGF in this situation. OTOH if S had left a proper edit summary the first time we might not be here. The bottom line is that I agree that the site doesn't need to be in the EL section. MarnetteD|Talk 19:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm usually inclined to believe what people say on here, and unless it's just obviously vandalism, or someone doing some kind of test edit, I try not to revert on sight. I only reverted the initial removal of the link because it was completely unexplained in the edit summary. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Speranza and her son

I wrote on Marnette's personal talk page but then thought it best to include my comments here.

Two contributions of mine were rmoved and I need to know why you took these actions. The information on Wilde's mother's 'sensational' trial is widely used by biographers as an essential part of OW's formation and his attitude that trials can be used as stagecraft - H. Montgomery Hyde mentions it as something that Oscar referred to in adulthood with praise for his mother. "I don't think that fire and enthusiasm has dimmed the enthusiasm that set the Young Irelanders ablaze" was OW's remark.

Ellmann links this experience that she had - as Jane Elgee- at Duffy's trial to her admonishment to OW at his own trial to 'not run' from the English.

Also why did you delete - what I thought- was my helpful addition of the Ellmann citation? The passage was marked as 'citation needed' and I supplied it. The original passage was not mine but I knew the proper citation. What was the problem with that? (BealBoru (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC))

Encouraged or Prompted?

"Wilde, encouraged by Douglas and against the advice of his friends, initiated a private prosecution..." does this mean that basically it was Douglas's idea, or that it was Wilde's idea and Douglas loved it, or what? I think this is a really important point about the case, and the characterization of Douglas' role should be specifically sourced. Dingsuntil (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Dingsuntil, I realise this is quite an old question, but Richard Ellmann's 'Oscar Wilde' very much suggests that Wilde was 'egged on' and 'dared' by Douglas, who hated his father, and who anyway was not anybody's wisest counsellor. I don't have to hand so can't quote pp no.s. Ellmann's book is anyway a masterly and highly readable account that makes one understand what a complex - and contradictory - man Wilde was. Pincrete (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (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)

I have made it clear in the infobox that he was British Nationality [as was case] and stated after Ireland in Place of Birth "United Kingdom" with a link to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland page. I left his ethnicity as Irish. Son of the Isles (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Try telling a Scotsman he's not Scottish and a Welshman he's not Welsh, and you'll get two lovely black eyes. … Yes but try telling the same Scottish or Welshman that's he's not British, and you'll get pretty much the same result, especially in the past before these nationalisms became political forces. Being both Welsh and British, is no stranger than being both Texan and American, more keenly felt perhaps as being 'distinct'. … … ps to the best of my knowledge, Wilde was not in any sense a 'nationalist'. Pincrete (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

@81.170.31.87: Please stop edit warring. If you feel strongly about this point, make your case here. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the discussion has already taken place, but you can revive it if you wish. You are at 5RR already; any further reverts will trigger a report to the edit warring noticeboard (if it hasn't been reported already). Thanks. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:DoctorJoeE, I came across this post 'on my WP travels', but what exactly is the basis for the claim of Wilde being 'Irish', forgetting passports, I would have thought that he was classic 'Anglo-Irish', culturally, socially etc. Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, on WP it doesn't matter what any of us "would have thought"; what matters is what sources say -- and all of Wilde's biographers seem to agree that he was Irish. There is a relevant discussion above, under "nationality and ethnicity", and if memory serves, other discussions in the archives; consensus has consistently come down on the side of referring to him as Irish. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:DoctorJoeE, a great deal of the above discussion relates to the different meanings of 'Irish' (citizenship, born on the island, cultural etc), it's being a bit disingenuous therefore to say 'most biographers say …', without knowing in what sense they used the word, or whether in context, they qualify their meaning (and without allowing for which meaning the reader will take). Wilde was unquestionably, born on the island, unquestionably a British citizen, and predominantly he identified with, sought to establish himself, within English culture. I'm not trying to 'own' Wilde, simply arguing for a more nuanced account of his provenance. I would argue just as strongly against him being described as 'British', unless it were clear that this referred to his citizenship. Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC) … … ps I also notice that MOSBIO, states that the infobox should record 'citizenship', or country in which notability was gained, neither of these criteria would justify 'Irish'. 15:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)

The slow edit war on this seems to be continuing (not me), might I suggest that a more constructive approach than simply reverting would be for us to find an easily understood way of articulating what we all know to be true, namely that Wilde was a British citizen, born in Ireland. MOS WP:OPENPARA states for Context (location or nationality), In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. So Wilde was a citizen of Ireland? A permanent resident there? Became notable there? I am really not interested in 'ownership' of Wilde, only that the reader be meaningfully informed, because 'Irish', is an inherently ambiguous, or misunderstood term term to many modern readers, which all biographers would clarify in some way. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

About Wilde and Ross...

Please, say what you think here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q1391982 --Araujojoan96 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leonjohnson.org/projects/wilde.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Today's criticism projected into the past

If there is going to be criticism using today's morality of ever person in history who went to a brothel - of men or women - then new sections will need to be added to virtually every article covering historical figures. The exploiter was the man who ran the brothel - Alfred Taylor. There is also evidence that Wilde was generous with gifts to those that he had sex with. The info added is one sentence and this has WP:UNDUE problems - especially as it was put in the lede. It also violates WP:MOSBEGIN. No context is given to what went on then nor to the difference between how this was regarded then in comparison to today. MarnetteD|Talk 00:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

'There is also evidence that Wilde was generous with gifts to those that he had sex with.' - this is an outrageous statement to make. If that is your point then include that as well, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why are you seeking to censor mention of what he did?Correctus2kX (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Try reading the policies and guidelines linked to. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, currently Cecil Rhodes' racism is under the moral indignation spotlight and possibly Wilde abuse of child prostitutes has also stirred some people up a little. Henry VIII murdered two of his wives and yet there is still a statue of him outside Barts Hospital. We can't rewrite history, but we do continually re-interpret it through our contemporary morality/ideology. Wilde is a hero for many because of his writings, do his other actions diminish that ? This is a very tricky subject, there is no such thing as objective morality, I think we can only state the facts. He used child prostitutes, some people today have condemned him for it. Unibond (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I wholly concur with Unibond's attitude, somewhere between imposing our own values on history and simply shrugging our shoulders (things were different then!) lies, well if not wisdom, at least moral conundrums. It is no stranger to record that SOME modern people have condemned him for using young prostitutes than it is to record that SOME OTHER modern people look upon him as an iconic hero who suffered for expressing 'the love that dare not speak its name'. Both attitudes are more of our time than of his. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Unibond This edit was not vandalism and should not have been reverted as such. The IP made quite clear what their objection was and why they were removing the section. An examination of the sources backs up the IPs objections. The first source makes no criticism of Wilde's actions whatsoever. It simply reports what was discovered in papers that had not been examined until in 2000. The second is about a play based on those papers. Again there is no direct criticism of "Wilde's exploitation" of the youths. It does, however, contain the following

Merlin Holland, however, cautions against judging Wilde’s actions by our own standards. “One is taking it out of context,” he argues. “It’s very difficult for me to look at it and say there was nothing wrong, but he was not an odious predator. The boys seemed to be willing partners and there appeared to be a relationship going on between him and them.”

Also, neither of those refs mention "poverty stricken youths." The third source, from 2012, is a two sentence item about a documentary examining Wilde's actions. It does not mention whether it was finished or whether it ever aired. To sum up the first two refs used do not back up the one sentence statement in the section. The third one uses some of the language in the sentence but does not pass muster as a reliable source about those assertions. Now I have taken Unibond's and Pincrete's comments onboard and I won't object to a section that thoroughly examines the aspects of the topic including Lord Alfred and Taylor's involvement. In its present form it is a WP:UNDUE statement. Again the references provided do not back up the statement made. Perhaps either or both of you can work on the section in user space and then move it here when you feel that it is ready. MarnetteD|Talk 02:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an edit war would you please replace the section as you see fit using this quote. Margaret Cotta, a chambermaid at the Savoy Hotel (a favourite rendezvous for Wilde and his series of young male 'renters') said she found a 'common boy, rough looking, about 14 years of age' in Wilde's bed, the sheets of which 'were always in a most disgusting state... [with] traces of vaseline, soil and semen'.

No, as that statement does not have anything to do with a modern day assessment of Wilde's actions. It would also still would be WP:UNDUE info without expansion and fuller context of the section. BTW in Frank Harris's biography of Wilde it is noted that it was Lord Alfred Douglas who had been in bed, and fouled the sheets, with the boy. MarnetteD|Talk 16:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

How can this article be neutral if his sexual abuse of children is whitewashed out of it ? Unibond (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding info placed in articles? At this point you will want to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, are you proposing that the Guardian is not main stream media and/or Wilde's child abuse is not of any significance ? Unibond (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You obviously haven't understood it. Your need to rewrite history is a textbook example of what that section is about. Teenagers are not children and the Guardian does not mention child abuse. Until you start following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and stop misrepresenting sources as well as my posts I am done with this conversation. MarnetteD|Talk 19:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to make it clear that mine was a general observation, rather than a response to the edit(s) in dispute. Having just read the three sources, I think the disputed text is (slightly) over-stated/simplified. None of the sources explicitly accuses of child-sex abuse, but all are clearly uncomfortable, with some of the facts (inc. Holland, his descendant). They are not so much overtly criticising as asking awkward questions.

Teenagers ARE children for the purposes of underage-sex legislation, and many of the recent notorious abuse cases involve those of 15+. I don't know how this should be represented. A lot of the raw facts are of course in Ellmann, who though is un-judgemental about those facts.Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you realise that your argument is weak as you have descended into making personal attacks against me. I have no desire to "rewrite history" only to record it warts and all. Wilde used child prostitutes, it is an important fact which should be included in the article. Currently it is whitewashed with weasel wording such as 'younger men' Unibond (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Unibond, I guess that your remarks were not directed at me. I agree with you partially, but do the sources refer to 'child prostitutes'? The legal age of consent (I believe) was 15, though of course there was no 'legal age' for same-sex encounters. From Ellman, I recall that most of Wilde's encounters were with working-class young men, many of whom did appear to have primarily financial/status motives, though they were not necessarily 'professionals'. I believe there should be a way of representing this accurately without using 21st C. judgements. As I said previously, the sources used are more expressing disquiet with this aspect of Wilde than 'criticising'. From memory, he also visited a brothel in France shortly after his release, where he 'had' a 15-year-old girl, an experience he compared to 'mutton'. The ease with which the wealthy were able to purchase sex, and the readiness of society to 'turn a blind eye', is fairly shocking to us today. Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Irrespective of what we think of his actions today, if a mainstream source reports that he engaged in sex with minors it should be included in the article on Wilde. To not do so is to whitewash his behaviour for the sake of his modern political popularity. LeapUK (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue at stake is not the adjudication of the moral or political biases of the editors, nor the assessment of Wilde's actions, but rather whether information about a particular encounter in Wilde's sex-life belongs in an encyclopedia entry on him (and if it does, then how important that information is and what weight the article should give it). For some context, there's is a section below from our article on Age of consent. The easy assumptions that we might be tempted to make today about what constitutes a minor ought not to be projected back to the Victorian era. Besides which, there are campaign groups who advocate an equal age of consent of 14. The assumptions of editors that Wilde is a child-abuser have more to do with bias within today's moral and political context than an historically informed, striving-for-objectivity assessment.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A general shift in social and legal attitudes toward issues of sex occurred during the modern era. Attitudes on the appropriate age of permission for females to engage in sexual activity drifted toward adulthood. While ages from 10 to 13 were typically regarded as acceptable ages for sexual consent in Western countries during the mid-19th century, by the end of the 19th century changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulted in the raising of the age of consent.

The English common law had traditionally set the age of consent within the range of 10 to 12, but in 1875 the age was raised to 13. Early feminists of the Social Purity movement, such as Josephine Butler and others, instrumental in securing the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, began to turn towards the problem of child prostitution by the end of the 1870s. Sensational media revelations about the scourge of child prostitution in London in the 1880s then caused outrage among the respectable middle-classes, leading to pressure for the age of consent to be raised again.

The investigative journalist William Thomas Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette was pivotal in exposing the problem of child prostitution in the London underworld through a publicity stunt. In 1885 he "purchased" one victim, Eliza Armstrong, the 13-year-old daughter of a chimney sweep, for five pounds and took her to a brothel where she was drugged. He then published a series of four exposés entitled The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon, which shocked its readers with tales of child prostitution and the abduction, procurement, and sale of young English virgins to Continental "pleasure palaces". The "Maiden Tribute" was an instant sensation with the reading public, and Victorian society was thrown into an uproar about prostitution. Fearing riots on a national scale, the Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt, pleaded in vain with Stead to cease publication of the articles. A wide variety of reform groups held protest meetings and marched together to Hyde Park demanding that the age of consent be raised. The government was forced to propose the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, which raised the age of consent to 16 and clamped down on prostitution.</ref>

Interruption

This sentence: "This article is about the 19th-century author. For other uses, see Oscar Wilde (disambiguation)."

is very needless -

because pretty much of all the "other" Oscar Wildes would not mind not being mentioned in this article.--37.230.8.161 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

-Following the link, this is what comes up:

Oscar Wilde was an Irish playwright, novelist, poet, and author of short stories.

Oscar Wilde may also refer to:

MS Oscar Wilde, a cruise ferry Oscar Wilde (film), a 1960 biographical film about Oscar Wilde Wilde (film), a 1997 biographical film about Oscar Wilde Oscar Wilde (play), an English play based on the life of Oscar Wilde

So there is nothing that is equal to the importance of the original Oscal Wilde,

other would translate "it was a smokescreen" (maybe of "evil"?)

see the bible for further reference.

Cerebral or not?

It strikes me that we have a problem of terminology. Firstly "cerebral" meningitis is NOT "idiotic" nor incorrect, it is, however, outdated terminology. When meningitis was first explored by scientific methods, it became apparent that it originated in the meninges of the brain and also in the spine. The initial separation was between cerebral meningitis and spinal meningitis and they were considered to possibly have different causes. Later, the division was revised when it was discovered that meningitis could be caused by a variety of vectors, bacteria, viruses etc. but the basic illness was the same. So the nomenclature was changed. The question that now arises is which should be used in the article. Cerebral meningitis as was understood by Wilde's contemporaries and documented in the sources etc. or the modern term meningitis. As we have a link to meningitis which describes what it is and the various vectors, I would prefer the inclusion of the word cerebral as it adds to the texture of the article without reducing any of the meaning. Dabbler (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, should we go with the slightly incorrect contemporary diagnosis or the more accurate current diagnosis. If we can draw something of an analogy canker was a historic cause of death that is now listed as cancer and canker is now just a common name for mouth ulcers. I tend towards using the current terminology for the sake of accuracy as to use the historic would assume a certain degree of extra knowledge in the reader (plus cerebral meningitis does reek a bit of tautology) Unibond (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your posts Dabbler & Unibond. Even if it is anachronistic IMO, since the term is used by so many sources, it should stay in the article. Wouldn't it be possible to mention the distinction between "contemporary and current" in a footnote? If either of you have an idea how to word it that would be helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 20:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Outdated is just one type of incorrect. An encyclopedia is not a period piece for the amusement of idle intellectuals; in no case do we call Parkinson's disease "shaking palsy", women "hysterical" and we most definitely don't attribute the death of people in the Middle Ages to noxious vapours or divine curses. As of 2017, "cerebral meningitis" makes just as much sense as "ocular retinitis" or the favourite term in Wilde's time, namely "cerebral fever": we are hear to be academic, not to be quaint. complainer (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It may be quaint, but if someone reads "cerebral meningitis" in an original source, it would be nice if it was explained here and they weren't left to flounder in ignorance. We might not say people died of "miasmas" instead of malaria but we should tell people what malaria was known at at the time. I have made a change to the section to reflect this. Dabbler (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Epitaph

"The epitaph is a verse from 'The Ballad...'". I have not read the ballad in its entirety, but he is usually pretty rigorous of structure: every verse is 6 lines. The epitaph is only 4. Truely a quibble—I probably should not even have pointed it out. OCD: what can I say? rags (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a pic of the epitaph here. You have to scroll down a bit but you will see that there are only four lines. The decision to use only four of the six lines from the last stanza of section four of the poem would have been made by those who commissioned the tomb. No worries about the OCD rags as many (most) of the best WikiP editors have it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

British or Irish

On looking at the dates, it does seem that Oscar Wilde was a subject of Great Britain. And his writings are certainly pro-English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.10.98 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence format

About this revert.[2] Please note that the MOS favors conciseness in the lead. See for example, from MOS:BLPLEAD: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. ... avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." And, from WP:LEADSENTENCE: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Writer encompasses the roles of playwright, novelist, essayist. Just as one would say "he was an actor", not "he was a Hollywood star, tv actor, and thespian". LK (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I also note that the promoted GA version states that he was a "writer, poet, and prominent aesthete." I believe we should revert to that. LK (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the 'thespian' analogy is valid. We would say "stage and film actor", if these were both notable. "playwright, novelist, essayist, and poet" is five words and all record notable achievements. Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete's assessment. Wilde wrote in such a wide variety of fields that it is worth mentioning them in the lede. They do not "overload" the sentence. MarnetteD|Talk 17:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Country of birth.

Oscar Wilde was born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, modern Ireland didn't even exist until after his death. --Donald Trung (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

He was born in the island called Ireland, and is commonly referred to as 'Irish' in the UK, as are people like Shaw, and sometimes Swift. I agree though that to those people unaware of the political history, the text is unhelpful. Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is linked as his birth place in the infobox. And there may have been no Irish state, but there were Irish people. William Avery (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the question is aimed at. Anyone with a sense of GB/IR history understands that Wilde was a British citizen, who was born in the Irish part of the then United Kingdom. The present info is factually accurate, but anyone not already equipped with the historical background may be confused. Wilde was not Irish in the modern sense of being an Irish citizen. Would we 'nakedly' call someone American who lived before the USA existed because they were born in what were then colonies? Nor was Wilde Irish in the sense that Heaney was Irish, ie identifying as such. Socially/culturally Wilde was Anglo-Irish. My point is that the text could be clearer, rather than assume that everyone understands the altered meanings. Pincrete (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish in introduction?

Wilde is in some categories which denote him as Anglo-Irish and I think it is only right that he be stated as belonging to this distinct cultural group in the introduction. There have even been books written about widespread perceptions of his un-Irishness in an Irish cultural context. While its not entirely his fault, it is quite instructive that the company he kept; "Lord" Alfred Douglas (Wilde's homosexual lover), were known for their rabidly anti-Irish views (Douglas had a bit of a sad on because Irishmen were no longer dying as canon fodder in the defense of the Empire). Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Woman's World

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428024637/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/wilde.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/fTrials/Wilde/wilde.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928055048/http://www.oscarwildeinamerica.org/sarony-photographs.html to http://www.oscarwildeinamerica.org/sarony-photographs.html

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

Y 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.

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

§ Regina v. Wilde is a Mess

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)

As to why there was a retrial, the first jury couldn't agree on most of the charges. According to a newspaper report at the time (which was prejudicial and would probably have caused any retrial to be dropped these days), on the four charges against Wilde they voted 10-2 guilty, 8-4 guilty, 10-2 guilty and 10-2 guilty. On one charge against Taylor, 10-2 guilty. On one charge against Wilde and Taylor, unanimous not guilty. On one further charge against Taylor, 2-10 not guilty. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Probably fine just to call it a hung jury for purposes of the article. Lukacris (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

Mr. Wilde's ancestry details appropriate to lede or bio/early sections?

I would posit that he is best known as an Irish playwright/poet/author and the lede so says. The early life section appropriately discusses the details of his ancestry. 75.173.15.133 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

PS Whether ancestry or social class still belongs in early life/bio. Unless you make a point that he is known foremost as an Italo-Anglo-Irish author. 75.173.15.133 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish does NOT refer to his ancestry! From the article: "Anglo-Irish (Irish: Angla-Éireannach) is a term which was more commonly used in the 19th and early 20th centuries to identify a social class in Ireland, whose members are mostly the descendants and successors of the English Protestant Ascendancy. … … … The term "Anglo-Irish" is often applied to the members of the Church of Ireland who made up the professional and landed class in Ireland from the 17th century up to the time of Irish independence in the early 20th century."

It is largely a social-cultural term rather than a 'nationality' term. Therefore descibing him as Italo-Anglo-Irish is nonsense, mixing chalk and cheese. His mother was partially of Italian descent, but both parents were Anglo-Irish - apart from 'borrowing' the term 'Anglo-', the term has almost nothing to do with - and does not necessarily require - having English antecedents! Just as importantly, all of the biographers which I have read draw attention to him having come from this social group! He is known as having been 'Irish' (ie from that island, not the modern meaning of a citizen of the Irish Republic), whose social and cultural background was Anglo-Irish. That's why it is in the lead!

I think that you are mixing this up with terms like "Greek American" etc, where the first word refers to ancestry and the second to nationality. Pincrete (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You're parsing words with more precision than the word itself carries. His mother being part italian is beside the point. Anglo-Irish and Catholic Irish were words to differentiate between groups, and that word apparently was useful to some people or the word wouldn't exist. It's meaning is well-established and predates the hubristic and surgical parsings between ancestry, nationality, ethnicity, etc., that you learned in your "Intro to Sociology" class last fall. Lukacris (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Some clown wrote the article?

QUOTE: was an Irish poet and playwright. END OF QUOTE.

Oscar Wilde was an English writer and a Subject of Great Britain. He has written in French also. If he has written in Irish or any other Celtic languages, it is not much know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D002:ADA1:8573:E170:9858:6076 (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There's definitely some clown who keeps deleting him from categories and trying to erase his identity as a radical christian, and an anarchist. We need to do something about these trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.190.132 (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(debut in society) Wrong house

The house shown, at 44 Tite Street, has no apparent connection to Wilde. Wilde's house (now no 34) can be readily identified today by its blue plaque. https://goo.gl/maps/7i81fLUS5SE2 --Hugh7 (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. Along with the missing plaque the bricks on the house Wilde lived in are red rather than brown. That is also not the picture that had been used in the article previously. I am not sure when it was changed and I don't have the time to search for it at the moment. Hopefully another editor who watches this article like Pincrete can figure out what is going on. MarnetteD|Talk 22:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For some reason, ping didn't work - but I've restored no. 16 pic ... perhaps placement isn't ideal though.Pincrete (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Pincrete. Sorry about the ping. You may want to come back and sign your post :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Sturgis biography

This text, is completely uncited and reads like an advert/endorsement:

In 2018, Matthew Sturgis' "Oscar: A Life," was published in London. Sturgis is a subject expert in Victorian studies. In the thirty years since the publication of Richard Ellmann's biography, the vast number of errors and omissions in the work have been noted (see the compilation of these errors and omissions in the privately published volume written by the German scholar, Horst Schroeder) and there has been a vast amount of scholarship conducted on various aspects of Oscar Wilde, his life, his wife and friends. There were also several rediscovered letters and other documents that remained uncollected. Sturgis incorporates this scholarly work and rediscovered material in the most extensively researched biography of Wilde to appear since 1988. 

I haven't read the Sturgis, but cannot believe that a more concise and more neutral summary of this new book is not possible. The linked Sturgis article refers to one or two favourable reviews. Pincrete (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You are correct P. This is sales hype. As I look at the books listed we could probably remove all of the descriptions. Several of them border on advertising. Listing the books is fine but we should avoid WP:POV summaries. In fact most articles that I've seen just have a list of books in the further reading section. Now this is just my take on things and other input is welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Anarchism revisisted

There is a full, summative chapter on Wilde's anarchist/anarchistic politics in Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Might be worth working in some of that research. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a debate over what kind of socialist he was, i.e. anarchist or just a socialist in general. There also seems to be a debate over what kind of Christian he was, Anglican or Catholic. Academic research shows he was an Anglican and an anarchist, but in order to avoid conflict with the people on here who like to argue, I propose just compromising and putting him in the category of "Christian socialist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.139 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Christian socialists is for adherents of the Christian socialism movement which as I understand the term is not the same thing as being a Christian who is a socialist. However, neither Wilde's religion or his politics are defining characteristics, so it is better not to use them for categorising this article, see WP:CATDEFINING. I will revert. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Censorship of Tomb

I have added a pending revision on the censorship of his tomb, but feel that it should be elaborated on. It is said by Lon Milo DuQuette that the tomb was initially censored by French Authorities with a bronze leaf. This leaf was pried off the tomb by Alister Crowley in an anti-censorship action, who later wore it to a party as a codpiece. I am supprised that the censorship is not contained in either this article, nor Oscar Wilde's tomb (which the latter contains no mention of the genitals) but I am curious as to if the mention of the stealing of the Bronze Leaf is significant to the article as a whole. My citation is Understanding Crowley's Thoth Tarot published 2002. Chapter 5, "THE PROPHET AND THE BOOK OF THE LAW" which has the following paragraph:

But what about Alister Crowley being a prophet? Are we talking about the same Alister Crowley who caused a sensation in artistic circles by chiseling off the bronze plaque that had been attached (by prudish French authorities) like a fig leaf over the genitals of the stone angel marking Oscar Wilde's grave? The same Alister Crowley who pranced into the Cafe Royal wearing the plaque as a codpiece and then presented it to the sculptor, Jacob Epstein? Are we talking about the same Alister Crowley who joked that he had Wiled and eaten two of his Himalayan native porters while on a climbing expedition?*" Are we 10 believe that this outrageous liberfine who seduced scores of women and men could possibly be a prophet? 70.173.36.28 (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I apoligize, I searched incorrectly on the tomb page, and see that it does contain the bronze plaque. I initially mis-remembered it as a gold plaque. Is it significant in the main article, however? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.36.28 (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Alfred Taylor

Since there seems to be no Wikipedia article clu[e]ing us in to who Alfred Taylor (the Alfred Taylor mentioned in this article, not one of the others) is, which is not particularly clear here, might I offer this link to fill in the gap in this article? https://zagria.blogspot.com/2010/01/alfred-taylor-1862-aristocrat-procurer.html Also, perhaps he IS worthy of such a Wikipedia article. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:6D1C:EC7C:EB0A:18C0 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

While I understand your concerns there are a few things to consider. There are numerous (maybe into the millions) of articles with mentions of people, places and things that don't have a separate article. Next, external links are discouraged in the body of the article. OTOH a footnote about Taylor is a possibility but blogs are not considered a WP:RS. It is even possible that he could meet WP:GNG and have his own article - after all he was known and written about outside of his involvement with Wilde - it is just that no one has created one yet. These are just my thoughts and other editors who watch this page may have other suggestions. MarnetteD|Talk 00:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Oscar Wilde for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Oscar Wilde is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Oscar Wilde until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)