Talk:Oscar Wilde/Archive 2

Novelist AND Author of one novel?

The first sentence of the article says he "an Irish playwright, novelist, poet and author of numerous short stories and one novel." Seems kind of redundant to me.

It's probably just sloppy wording, but but I'm hesitant to make the edit because part of me thinks this may have been intentional. However even if it was intentional, I still think it reads rather awkwardly and could use some clarification.

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious or doing something wrong. This is my first time contributing to wikipedia... I'm a WikiVirgin, if you will. --Sinewav (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrible Article

Where is the information on his WORK????

Theres more info on his personal life than his work. This is why i don't like Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric3322 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is entitled Oscar Wilde, not Works of Oscar Wilde — Johnl1479^(talk) 03:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reformed Homosexual?

LoveGodsWay.org cites Oscar Wilde as being a reformed homosexual. What's the deal? 72.72.244.182 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is called "convert the pervert" into something more useful for an agenda having nothing to do with the culturally significant individual. For a grand example of this, see "Vatican Looks to Oscar Wilde to 'Reawaken' Catholicism" (Posted on totalcatholic.com on January 06, 2007):

The inimitable witticisms of Oscar Wilde are to be embraced by the Vatican in a new book intended to 'reawaken' Catholicism within the wider public. The book, entitled Provocations: Aphorisms for an Anti-conformist Christianity, compiled by The Vatican's Head of Protocol Fr Leonardo Sapienza, contains many of the controversial Irish poet's well known maxims. Despite being a homosexual, Wilde converted to Catholicism at the end of his life, and Fr Sapienza said that the decision to reproduce his work in the book was made because he was a 'writer who lived perilously and somewhat scandalously but who has left us some razor sharp maxims with a moral,' Fr Sapienza told the Times.

(Welland_R 12:11, 24 January 2007)

Uncyclopedia?

• Oscar Wilde is a big, big deal on Uncyclopedia. Shoudl that be mentioned?

It is mentioned, on Uncyclopedia. Its a fact about Uncyclopedia, not about Oscar Wilde. Dabbler 16:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This page has been vandalised - now is it restored to a previous version

Ask and ye shall receive! Just go to the previous good version, click "edit" then click "save". But I've done it already. I suspect it was an accident rather than actual malice. Jeremy

The entry says "He was convicted on May 25, 1895 of "sodomy and gross indecency" and sentenced to serve two years hard labor in a London prison. There he wrote the famous poem The Ballad of Reading Gaol", but http://www.cmgww.com/historic/wilde/owbio.html says "Upon his release, Oscar wrote The Ballad of Reading Gaol, a response to the agony he experienced in prison."... so, which version is correct? 216.52.229.254 02:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(I.e., did he write it while in prison, or after having been released from prison?) A5 02:37, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He did, however, write De Profundus while in Reading Gaol. Unless I remember incorrectly. Lizzie 19:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems that he wrote it after having left Redding Gaol; I changed it accordingly.

Vandalized? That wasn't my intent. And the second person who added the Uncyclopedia stuff wasn't me (the IP submitter). Bill Sayre 19:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"In the Godzilla vs. Megalon episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, a character in the movie was named and frequently referenced as Oscar Wilde for wearing a very similar haircut."

If this can be included under "Wilde in modern culture" then I would contest that Uncyclopedia deserves a reference The Spith 10:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout adding that Uncyclopedia reference. As he's everywhere over there, I just thought...--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is linked to as an external reference, instead of being under "Wilde in modern culture". Why? Uncyclopedia is far more known than many of the others in that list, so it certainly is more part of "modern culture" than them, and the made-up Wilde quotes there are very prominent. 82.103.214.43 06:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

uncyclopedia

it should be noted that this guy is like a god on Uncyclopedia.--Jaysscholar 23:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Why should it be noted? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, and collecting information is kind of its purpose. Assuming Uncyclopedia is notable enough, I see no problem. Whether it is, though, is probably debatable, and I'm staying out of that argument for now. EldKatt (Talk) 08:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Uncyclopedia is just notable enough that it deserves an article, and Wilde should be mentioned in that article, but Uncyclopedia should not be mentioned in the Wilde article. Wilde may be very important to people interested in Uncyclopedia, but Uncyclopedia is not generally very important to people interested in Wilde. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It's not that Wilde is considered important to them, it's the fact that phony Wilde quotes are in practiclly every article. Just mentioning that fact some where might be very inresting to someone intrested in Wilde. --The_stuart 21:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that an internet joke site makes fun of Wilde is not notable, and does not belong in this article. Please get some perspective -- the number of people worldwide who even know this Uncyclopedia website exists is probably in the thousands, at most. I am removing the mention from the body of the article -- Uncyclopedia seems to have its own article, so keep the Internet meme discussions there. --Graue 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ballmer's article entry references to his notability in Uncyclopedia. Something to think about...--Cumbiagermen 07:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this discrepancy to my attention. I have fixed the Ballmer page. CaveatLector^Talk 08:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Look Uncyclopedia is big enough to have it included okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs)

Regardless, there is still the section "Oscar Wilde in modern culture". Some of the items mentioned there are considerably more obscure than Uncyclopedia. samwaltz 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Samwaltz has a point there. The Starman comics? <sarcasm>Yeah, they're so well-known they have a Wikipedia article.</sarcasm> Ian Lawson? New Remorse? Hmmm?!--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See my suggestion a couple of sections down at Talk:Oscar Wilde#Oscar Wilde in modern culture. Dabbler 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the uncyclopedia connection is completely non-notable and the jokes are pretty terrible to boot (go ahead say I'm biased I don't care). Quadzilla99 15:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor jokes on Uncyclopedia are not noteworthy. Wikipedia is not about to add every little quirk of various internet groups to articles. It may be worth mentioning on the wiki article on Uncyclopedia, but asside from that it has no place in this article. Rotovia (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia, redux

I see that Uncyclopedia-related material has now appeared in the body of the article; it was already in an external link, which I wasn't objecting to. I think this is inappropriate, and the kind of thing that it detracts from Wikipedia. Since I've reverted this before, I'm not going to be the first to revert this time, but would welcome it if someone else did. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

HEY! You should include the info on Uncyclopedia! Uncyclopedia REVOLVES around Oscar.

I went ahead and included it!

And I once again removed it per the conversation on this talk page. CaveatLector^Talk 04:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Could I ATLEAST add it to the reference section? It is IMPORTANT information, and isn't Wikipedia supposed to include ALL the information. What if someone did a report on Wilde and need to take about him in pop culture. ONE reference won't do it. The uncyclopedia info is NEEDED! Tingle

Wikipedia isn't supposed to include all information. It's supposed to include information that is considered notable and verifiable. In this case, it's far from clear. I personally lack the insight into the issue to have an opinion, but it looks like public opinion leans against mentioning this as more than an external link. EldKatt (Talk) 08:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde at Uncyclopedia.org

Shouldn't it be mentioned that he is a central person at uncyclopedia.org ?

• Sure, mention it at uncyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• This has already been done to death on this very talk page: read it. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it, but there is a definite consensus that this fact is not worth noting in the article. Robin Johnson 16:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'd say an external link to Making up Oscar Wilde quotes, but that's it. Crazyswordsman 02:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good idea - I'll put this in. We'll see how long it lasts. Robin Johnson 13:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone removed the external link; it needs to be put back. Sir Crazyswordsman 06:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No. We now have an article References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture, and clearly this belongs there, not in the article about theman himself. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde's name-anagram

"OSCAR WILDE" forms the meaningful name-anagram "Dare I scowl?".

(Having no experience or competence in editing encyclopedia articles I am refraining from corrupting the balance of this article for fear of upsetting previous contributors. I have left the burden of this decision to just such a better qualified person or to some other brave contributor. Please excuse my cowardice!) --Elizabeth Jane 12:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do be bold in updating pages, but that isn't a fact about Oscar Wilde so it doesn't belong in the article. I think it might just be possible for an anagram to be so well-known and often quoted that it becomes a notable fact about a person, but very rarely indeed. Not even I'm An Evil Tory Bigot seems to have cut it. Robin Johnson (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging "Oscar Wilde" With "Wilde's Manuscripts"

On the topic of merging the currently seperate articles dealing with Oscar Wilde and his works, I think that "Wilde's Manuscripts" should be added on to "Oscar Wilde". It makes the entry on his manuscripts more accessable and easier to find.

Kevin Frank 6:49 PM, November 18, 2006

Give Priority to Literary Works

A suggestion:

The Page goes on and on about Wilde's sexual preferences and private life. His literary works become a casualty in the process. There is a need to give priority to his literary contributions, with his private life, interesting as it is, as an add on.

Regards Sandy

I would agree with that his sexuality and the trial is way too much overemphasized I dont understand, why this should be a good article. --84.167.82.148 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Chhajjusandeep 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, most of the literary works have articles of their own, but I agree that this article should still have much more of an overview of Wilde as a writer rather than as an icon. - Jmabel | Talk 08:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The introduction tells us he was on of the most successful Victorian playwrights but then the rest of the article gives no indication why. In fact, his work is barely mentioned.217.154.66.11 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sub-standard external link?

The link 'Oscar Wilde' in the list of external links takes you to a page of historical pen portraits that is not particularly informative about Wilde. I think that this link merits deletion - does anyone agree with me? (The page is part of a site concerned with the statistical analysis of history. It is as mad as a box of hair - go see. Diverting as some elements of this site are, I don't think it is the job of the Oscar Wilde entry in Wikipedia to lead us to it.) Notreallydavid 02:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Utterly. Removed. - Jmabel | Talk 17:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

LGBT translation

The LGBT WikiProject has recently started a translation section, translating foreign LGBT articles into English so we can improve our article on that subject. Our first article was the Dutch FA of Oscar Wilde, which it turns out in actually a 2003 translation of this article. Nevertheless, I have compared articles, and found these differences in the Dutch version but not the English, which you may wish to consider adding. I cannot, obviously, vouch for their veracity:

1. His mother worked as a translator.
2. "His ancestors were of Dutch origin and Wilde is a bastardization of "De Wilde"
3. "The dialogue is littered with quotable oneliners that are still quoted (for example:"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about" and "I'm glad to hear you smoke. A man should always have an occupation of some kind"). Wilde also thought of these aphorisms to attract attention. Sometimes he sent them as telegrams to the Times."

I hope you can find these useful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch Wikipedia article about Wilde has been partly edited away from the English 2003 article since December 2006. About the points mentioned:

1. Yes, his mother translated several books, as can be found easily in Ellmann, from the German and from the French. And she translated Swedenborg, could that be from Latin?
2. I didn't find any verification of this, but maybe any of you may enlighten us about the Wilde family's Dutch ancestors.
3. Sounds nice.

The Dutch Wikipedia article contained a mention, translated from the 2003 English version, of a "rather nasty suggestiveness" of the works of Oscar Wilde. This was deleted from the English Wilde article subsequently, I think by Bishonen. What can have been meant by that "nasty suggestiveness"? Soczyczi 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition

Re:

"imprisoned after being convicted of the offence of "gross indecency," which also included 
homosexual acts not amounting to buggery in then-British legislation", 

What else did it include? Haiduc 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Buggery. The point is that gross indecency did not exclude buggery as seems to be indicated in the earlier revision, it also included other acts as well as buggery. Dabbler 12:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I defer to Montgomery Hyde: "In England, from the reign of King Henry VIII to the reign of Queen Victoria, those convicted of 'the abominable crime' of buggery or sodomy were liable to suffer death and in practice frequently did so. In 1861 (1889 in Scotland) the maximum penalty was changed to life imprisonment. By the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, homosexual acts of 'gross indecency' not amounting to buggery, which had hiherto not been regarded as a crime at all, were made subject to a maximum of two years imprisonment with hard labour. It was under this statute that Wilde was prosecuted . . ."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Buggery or sodomy were just that, and gross indecency was everything else. Haiduc 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual clause reads" "Any male person who, in public or private, commits or is party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour" In other words it does not exclude buggery or sodomy, it extends the definition to specifically cover all kinds of acts between two males. The earlier law had only criminalised sodomy/buggery. As punishment for sodomy was significantly more severe and the act harder to prove, prosecutors tended to use the more sweeping definition for all male-male sexual acts as you could be charged without having to prove actual penetration. Dabbler 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a law meant to punish crime A is also used to punish crime B does not entitle us to say that crime B is included in the definition of crime A. The present situation is more along the lines that "We cannot prove crime B against you but we know something was going on, so we'll just accuse you of crime A instead." But I am leery of splitting hairs any further since we should not be the ones doing it but those in the know and in print. I would be much more comfortable with your interpretation if you could back it up with a good published source. Haiduc 02:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I did quote the actual legislation but I presume you mean the gloss I put on it. Actually other acts were also punishable under the sodomy laws as were acts between men and animals. However, the penalty was death so the problem of conviction was real. I am looking for a referenceable source. In the meantime, I won't revert but I think it should be made clear that the fact that Wilde was only charged with gross indecency did not prove that he had not participated in sodomy (which is what he failed to prove in his libel action) and was the way I read your original phrasing. Dabbler 15:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be at fault here, but I was arguing the terminology, not the facts. As for his relations with Douglas, I recently came across material indicating they did not specifically engage in anal relations (maybe in Hyde's book), but I don't really know the situation. Haiduc 20:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came across an interesting item in Kaplan's Sodomy on th Thames: "Mr. Labouchere [...] proposed that the section be extended to apply to people of the same sex who indulged in familiarities or indecencies. [A] piece of legislative wisdom which is without a model and without a copy in the law of any other civilized country." Kaplan here is citing th words of Frank Harris in his (presumably) autobiographical My Lives and Loves p.144 (p.175 in Kaplan). I think that pretty much puts paid to sodomy and buggery being implied in the definition of the term as originally legislated. Haiduc 04:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Uncyclopedia.org talk

Even though I would not disagree with a reference to uncylopedia.org, I personally find the following rather... "un-encyclopedyish": "Wilde continues to provide material for venues such as Uncyclopedia, an unabashed parody of Wikipedia. (Given Wilde's love of parody, he would perhaps have encouraged rather than disparaged such a light-hearted enterprise.)". Needless to say that I believe the last line should be removed asap (the only reason Im not doing it myself is because there has already been so much discussion...), but I also believe that the note about what uncyclopedia is really does /not/ belong in the oscar wilde article. A link to the uncyclopedia.org article should suffice.--bb 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a POV and so violates Wikipedia policy, no discussion needed. Dabbler 14:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Somdomite

The article Somdomite shouldn't be a separate article, this content should be merged here, or perhaps be part of some other article on Wilde's trial and imprisonment, if such an article exists or should exist. Having an article on a misspelled word is silly. --Xyzzyplugh 14:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be rewritten when merged in. Somdomite is rather poorly written. Jvbishop 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just redirected it here, without merging anything in. It didn't appear to have anything keepable, this article already has the same content but better written. --Xyzzyplugh 11:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Somdomite has got to go immediately. It's totally absurd as: (A) the word is misspelled and therefore utter nonsense and illiterate. (B) Oscar Wilde is not synonymous with sodomy. (buggery is). In any case Wilde was convicted of Gross indecency not sodomy... technically and legally two different things as stated in the introductory paragraph of the article. Will someone please delete somdomite ASAP. Natalie West 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It no longer exists as an article - it is, However the word that was written by the Marquis on the card. It does need to be unlinkied as it is now a circular link back to this article.MarnetteD | Talk 22:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Marnette, you are right! I forgot that Queensbury famously misspelled sodomy. Maybe it does deserve a mention in the article as it is humorous. Natalie West 22:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked on my talk page for the redirect to be removed and then Somdomite to be deleted. While it seems you may have changed your mind, if you still want it to be deleted, you could either remove the redirect yourself and propose it for deletion, or you could nominate it for deletion using Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Xyzzyplugh 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that no one had started the "influenced" section, so I went ahead. Morrissey is a rather obvious one, but I will add more later.

That last comment isn't related to the "Sodomite" conversation at all, it's just how the comment was posted. Sorry!

Birth place flag icon

It seems to me that using the tricolour is anachronistic, the Union flag is really not Irish. I would suggest we try and find an Irish symbolic flag which is appropriate and from the time. Perhaps the Irish harp flag or the St Patrick's saltire would be appropriate. Dabbler 12:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In looking at the two I think his father would have chosen the saltire and his mother the harp flag. Oscar's love of beauty and art would, probably, have lead him towards the harp also, so I will put my vote in for that flag. My thanks to Dabbler for trying to work out a compromise which will keep the item in question from being altered as often as it is. MarnetteD | Talk 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for no flag at all. I think the use of flags can trivialise the complexity of nationality and ethnicity. If we have to have a flag, I'd go for the harp. There are good reasons against both the tricolour and the union flag: the harp will at least make people think a little deeper about its meaning. Bluewave 21:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Siblings?

Reading casually through the article, I noticed that the article states "Here the Wilde brothers played with the old George Moore," while never having presented the fact that Wilde had a brother, or any siblings at all.

It seems he had an older brother named Willie, born in 1852, and a sister, Isola, born in 1856, but who died at the age of nine or ten. I'm not sure where this would go, but I think it should be included somewhere, and definitely before the statement about the brothers playing together. 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Added siblings Dabbler 17:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"The first modern man"

This statement has now been reinstated, with a reference to IMDB. IMDB is quoting a phrase from a studio tag line, or publicity statement, describing a movie. As such are we justified in including it here to describe OW himself? I'm inclined to follow User:Dabbler and delete once more--Old Moonraker 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw my suggestion—someone's done it. --Old Moonraker 12:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Influences

Surely more literary influences should be listed? T.S Eliot for example, quotes Wilde in 'Portrait of a Lady', I believe.

Libel Case

Some of the the terminology seems to be muddled. The article states that Wilde 'brought suit', so the libel case was civil; however, the article refers to 'the prosecution' in connection with the libel suit. It would be helpful if someone with a sound knowledge of English legal terminology would tidy this up. Norvo 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Old Moonraker 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the charge was one of criminal libel and so the terms prosecution etc. are perfectly justifiable. Wilde was not bringing suit he was a witness for the prosecution just as if it were a charge of theft. Dabbler 11:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

However distinguished, Alfred Wills was not a chief justice. See the DNB.

Chief Justice Wills

Wills was a High Court Judge, not a Chief Justice of any sort. See the Dictionary of National Biography.

Oscar Wilde in modern popular culture

Dorian gray also appeared in the recent film The Leauge of extroidanary gentlemen. As I have poor spelling and no account access I was hoping someone could add it for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.255.124 (talk) 20:04, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

The name Oscar after his death

I saw a documentary a while ago in which it was mentioned that there was not a single child in Britain named Oscar for twenty years after Wilde's death. It would be interesting to include this in the article if someone can find a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.225.16 (talk) 10:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Constance Lloyd (Wife of Oscar Wilde)

Does anyone speak French? There is a large entry, including about three photographs, on Wilde's wife on fr.wikipedia.org. However, the English-language Wikipedia simply re-directs to this article for information on Constance Lloyd, of which there is very little. I think she should get her own entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.148.43 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Birth date

I have no issue with the 16 October birth date we use, yet there are many, many external sources that seem to think he was born on 15 October. Does anyone know how this error crept in all over the place, and do we have a reliable source (eg. birth certificate) that puts it to rest? It would be nice to be able to say that our 16 October is right, and why. -- JackofOz 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello JackofOz. I have more than two dozen books on Wilde and all of them use October 16th. His grandson Merlin has used the 16th in both lectures and books that he has written. The collected letters of OW use the 16th. The exhibit on Wilde that was at the Morgan Library in 2001 used the 16th as has birthdate. I am not sure what external sources you are citing that use October 15th (I have never seen this date used until your note here) but if they are only online ones it is another of the reasons to not trust sources from the web as an incorrect fact gets repeated way too quickly. My only question would be are we to doubt Richard Ellman, Frank Harris (well lots that he wrote can be doubted, but, not this date), Oscar's son Vyvyan Holland and his son Merlin and all of the other biographers? What are these "many, many" external sources? There would have to be something of extraordinary significance to overturn all of the written sources (especially those of his son and grandson) in my opinion. MarnetteD | Talk 05:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD. As I said, I believe 16th is correct, and overturning that is the last thing on my mind. I’ve been reading about Wilde for longer than I can remember, decades before the web was invented, and I often came across the claim that he was born on the 15th. I still see it from time to time in places like the “On This Day” sections of otherwise reputable newspapers. This makes reference to the fact that various sources ‘’say’’ it’s the 15th, while preferring the 16th as the "probable" date. Here are some other web-based cites for the 15th – [1] and [2] – the latter Irish, curiously. I recall reading somewhere, somewhere – for the life of me I can’t remember where, but it was about 20 years ago – where the issue of the date was discussed and the evidence for the 16th (I think it was his birth certificate) was produced and settled the matter. Given that there is some level of disagreement among sources, I just think it would be good to make an authoritative statement in the article in support of 16 October, and saying why 15 October is wrong.

(Note: In my 1988 edition of Ellman, page 15 says he was born on 16 October 1854, without further discussion, yet in the Index, page 630 has "Wilde, Oscar - Principal Biographical Events - birth in Dublin (6 October 1854). I'm sure this is just a typo, but a somewhat unhelpful one.) -- JackofOz 09:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that his birth certificate was a piece of evidence at one of his trials. This quotes the relevant part of the transcript (in 2 slightly different versions), where Wilde rather insouciantly confirms he must have been born 16 October 1854 if that's what his birth certificate says - "You have my certificate and that settles the matter".

I've been doing private biographical research on notable people for a long time, and some years ago I made the following note in my Oscar Wilde file: "Sources are evenly divided as to whether the 15th or 16th was his birth date, but according to his birth certificate, it occurred at 2.38am on 16 Oct" - unfortunately, I didn't record where I got that information from. Ah well. -- JackofOz 12:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again JackofOz. I first want to apologize if my first note was rude in any way. I typed it just before falling asleep and the first thing that I thought about on waking this morning was that it was too curt. Thanks for providing your many thoughts and some links. I wonder if the fact that he was born at 2;38am is part of the confusion. The fact that the birth certificate was provided at trial brings up an interesting fact that I have encountered. The first link that you provided also states that some sources place his birth year as 1856. When I was researching his time in Colorado one of the newspapers announcing his lecture listed his birthdate as Oct 16th, 1856. I assumed this to be a typo. A few years later when I visited the Wilde exhibit that I mentioned above one of the items on display was a sort of advance press release that would be sent to the newspapers of the cities that he would be coming to. It quite clearly had Oct. 16th, 1856 typed on it. Now, I am sure that you have read, as I have, that he began lying about his age after he graduated from Oxford (if not before) to make his talents seem even more remarkable and, of course, this fact was one of the first things that Carson used to cast doubts in the minds of the jurors, et al, as to his truthfulness at the first trial. It was interesting, for me, to have this fact, that I had read in so many biogrpahies, made concrete by the two different items that I had encountered in my own research into Wilde's life. I wonder what the arguments for the 15th are as none of the links provided give any reason why they dispute the accepted date. It still makes me feel that the writers may have first read a typo that became fact for them and it spread from there. I was fortunate to attend a talk that Merlin Holland gave several years ago. He has done a great deal of research into his grandfathers life in the last 15+ years (including publishing never before seen pictures of both Constance and Oscar in the book "The Wilde Album" - if you don't already have it in your collection I can highly recommend that you track it down) and he is a no holds barred, strip away the myths, scholar about Oscar. I just feel sure that if he had encountered anything to cast doubts on Oct. 16th he would have mentioned it in at least one of his writings. Thanks for starting this conversation and maybe it will bring someone to the discussion who has any info on why the 15th is mentioned at all. MarnetteD | Talk 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MarnetteD. That's excellent (and no apology is necessary). Usually, people have no knowledge of a notable person's time of birth, and all they have is a date. So I don't really see how the fact that Wilde was born at 2:38am (or at any other time) on the 16th could have contributed to anyone thinking he was born the previous day. Like you, I suspect "the writers may have first read a typo (15th rather than 16th) that became fact for them and it spread from there". But let's see what any others have to contribute. Thanks again. -- JackofOz 01:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Rare book find

Here's the citation for the deleted item. As User:MarnetteD suggests, it might rest better in The Importance of Being Earnest article. --Old Moonraker 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for finding this Old Moonraker. I have moved the original edit to the page for the play and added the citation that you found. MarnetteD | Talk 20:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgment in the The Importance of Being Earnest history!--Old Moonraker 20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) MarnetteD | Talk 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro

To my surprise this text was deleted form the intro:

Flamboyant about his attraction to young men and his relationships with them, he provoked a trial which led to his dramatic downfall. Convicted of the offence of "gross indecency," he was imprisoned for two years of hard labour. The imprisonment ruined his health and he died shortly afterwards.

The rationales was that it was debatable whether he was flamboyant or not, that he did not provoke the trial, and that the intra-linked term did not need a link.

The most elementary Google search for the terms "oscar wilde"+flamboyant will yield a large crop of sources identifying the man as precisely that.

It is un-debatable history that OW provoked the trial against Bosie's father, at Bosie's instigation, trial which was the proximate cause of his trial and imprisonment.

And internal links are an accepted feature of Wikipedia, especially appropriate for a legal term with specific meanings which hardly anyone can be expected to know.

The intro as it is now is unsatisfactory as it does not conform to Wikipedia standards, which require a longer intro, preferably of three medium-sized paragraphs. Furthermore it is uninformative and a poor abstract of the article. The deleted text was a step in the right direction. Unless substantive reasons are presented for its removal I suggest it be reinstated. Haiduc 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, as always it is necessary to point out that wikipedia has guidelines not requirements. Longer intros are not required though they can enhance an article.

1. Typing any two or three words into google provides hits that have nothing to do with the realities of a given historical situation. The rational for removing the first part of the statement was not about whether he was "flamboyant", yes, Oscar was flamboyant. It was removed because the sentence was, in fact, much longer and indicated that he was "flamboyant about his attraction to younger men." This is still debated among historians. The fact that his dealings with rent boys took place behind closed doors, at Alfred Taylor's house or hotels, is just one piece of evidence against the statement. Also, having it in the opening makes it sound like this was something that was a part of his entire life and not just the later years. Also, no citation for this assertion is provided.
2. Oscar was provoked into the trial. First, by Queensbury's card and second, as you state, by Lord Alfred in his relentless dispute with his father. Most of the biographies that I have read speak of Oscar as a pawn in this dispute between the two and not the master of the situation. The sentence, as written, makes it sound like Oscar was looking for a reason to go to trial even before receiving Q's card. Again no citation for the statement is provided.
3. Internal links are fine and one of the powerful things about wikipedia. However, the one you provided was not an "internal link" that took a reader to a seperate page giving detail about gross indecency and what a charge of it would entail. Clicking on the link simply took one to a section header of this page - making it more of an "intrapage link". The average reader would have to do some searching to figure out why this link lead them there and "no surprise links" is one of the guidelines for creating them. Also, the reader would have wound up at this point in the article anyway and some would have been annoyed at having to scroll back up to read the article from the beginning.

I am not saying that the intro couldn't be improved. Historical research into Oscar is rife with varied interpretations of the events of his life. My readings indicate that the intro in question gave a reader a somewhat POV view of some of the controversial parts of Oscar's life. The points above are only a few of the many items of debate that could be brought up about them. If you want to alter and expand the intro I suggest that you might make requests of editors like Dabbler, Old Moonraker and JackofOZ, all of whom, like you, have worked on this page before, to pool some ideas and see where that leads. MarnetteD | Talk 07:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the intro could be expanded a bit, but I also agree that the proposed changes took it in the wrong direction. I would also suggest that someone who wanted to improve the article could get a lot more "bang for the buck" by actually writing a section on Wilde's plays and novels which are barely mentioned in this version of the article which basically ignores the reason why he was so celebrated in his own time. An intro may be important but actual content is even more important. Dabbler 12:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I should buy into this, but here goes. First, flamboyance. Oscar paraded his boys, especially Bosie, around fashionable London haunts - if that's not flambouyant, what is? Second, provocation of the trial: There were two trials, and it was Oscar who actually began the first - he accused Queensbury, not the other way round. For the second, Queensbury's counter-trial, Oscar was given time to escape to the Continent, but chose to stay and fight. Once again, if that's not provocation, what is? I think this rather short para should stay. I also think the lead is far too short anyway - where's the treatment of his literary achievement? The answer to the unbalance which this para introduces (and it does) is to write more paragrãphs, not fewer. (By the way, the articled gives a somewhat unbalanced view of Oscar's politics, too - it was this pacifist and socialist who wrote of how "the measured beat of English drums/rolls to the gates of Kandahar"- sounds like Kipling, but no, it's Oscar). PiCo 13:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First perhaps a link could be provided to the spot where it states that biography openings should be three medium paragraphs as I can't find this. In fact this [3] would seem to indicate that the current opening meets the current guidelines.

As to PiCo's points there is something to be said about your argument for the flamboyance with young men but I still feel that putting it in the intro makes it seem that this was a major part of his life when it doesn't actually become a part of his character until the early 1890's. Point two, there were actually three trials, but, the first one might not have happened if Douglas had not insisted that Oscar pursue the matter. Remember that the only member of the public that had seen the card was the porter at the Albemarle Club and there is a debate whether he could read Queensbury's writing or not. Oscar addresses this situation in De Profundis when he points out that he was foolish too let himself become the focal point of the struggle between these two. The new paragraph only addresses Wilde's downfall which is already mentioned in the current opening. One point that hasn't been mentioned about the new submission is the "died shortly thereafter" assertion. Yes, prison damaged Wilde's health. So did his drinking habits after his release. Three and a half years may seem a short time to some and not to others (just try remembering everything that has happened in your life since May of 2004) so I would suggest mentioning the actual amount of time between the two events.

Two further suggestions/requests. 1)I have gone through about three dozen wikipedia bio pages this morning and the only one that I can find that is longer than this one is Laurence Olivier's and it focuses on his career and not the details of his life. Perhaps you could provide some links to a few that you like so that I can get an idea of the "standard" that you hope to meet. 2)Perhaps a sandbox page could be started where editors, including those already mentioned, could work on a fuller and more balanced intro and then it can be added all at once and not in a piecemeal fashion. Cheers to all for their input. MarnetteD | Talk 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I think you've got it in a nutshell there: a good bio is one that focuses on the career. When did the love that dares not speak its name become the love that won't shut up?PiCo 04:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a new joke, but apropos. Wildean, even, though he'd probably have found a more elegant alternative to "shut up". - Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

MarnetteD's suggestion that we go elsewhere and futz around in a sandbox is another example of unfamiliarity with standard Wikipedia practice. We have a sandbox: it is the article itself. All the articles here are works in progress, and do not need to be "defended." All of us here presumably have left primary school behind, so we can be trusted to not stick our foot in it too badly.

As for the actual text of the intro, perhaps we can evolve something that reflects his love affair with love, which permeates a great part his work and his life. ("The Importance..." "Dorian..." his fairy tales, and others, I am sure, which are not on the top of my head just now.) Haiduc 11:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Before we do the intro, we need to do the article. Wilde is famous on two fronts, his place in literature and his status as a gay icon. Both have to be explained. At the moment, neither really is - the literature is almost entirely absent, and the gay-icon side is buried under the kind of prurient detail more fitting a tabloid magazine. PiCo 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Was Ireland a country?

The section "Marriage and family" states that Wilde left Ireland in 1878 and "was to return to his native country only twice, for brief visits." Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the time. I know that this may be a sensitive issue, but was Ireland a country at the time? Wouldn't it be better to just use the term "island"? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ireland was one of the component countries or nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which also included the countries of England, Scotland and Wales. So the use of the label "country" is quite appropriate. Dabbler (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

However, none of the constituent countries of the UK are recognised by the UN as countries, as far as I know. Mnealon (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ireland has been a country for quite a long time, just as Iraq has been a country regardless of any foreign occupation. Indeed, I'd go so far with the radical notion that the Irish have been a recorded distinctive people in world history for about 1,500 years with their own native country, Ireland. I think you'll also find that the UN did not exist when Oscar Wilde was alive. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Woman's World

ISTR that when Oscar Wilde started editing this journal it was called Lady's World, and he renamed it. If someone could find a citation for this, it seems worth adding to the article.

Apepper (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Just a question, does this mean Oscar Wilde wasa pedophile? Or that he only engaged sexually with adolescants that have come of age, because you can still be a pedophile if you have sexual relations with an adolescent, if they have not come of age (now 16 in Britain, then I would have presumed 18 but this might be inocorrect). So is Oscar WIlde a Pedophile?Anti-BS Squad (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but in any case he would not have been a paedophile, but an ephebophile. Mnealon (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Proseline tag

This was added on 10 October 2007 with no explanation beyond the edit summary: "added {{proseline}}" . I see nothing resembling proseline (example: "a series of one-sentence paragraphs") in the article as it now rests and I am inclined to remove the tag. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the removal of the tag. One thing to note - in January of 2007 the fundamental nature of this page was changed by User:Neal kydd a self professed writer about Wilde. If any proseline came into the article I think it might have been during this time. Tags placed on articles without any followup on the talk page about what the editor would like to see changed are always a bit frustrating and the suggestion that the timeline of Wilde's life should be changed into a list is laughable. MarnetteD | Talk 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Uncyclopedia stuff(yes, again)

I, personally, feel that there is evidence enough above that the bit about Uncyclopedia is more than notable, and I'm sure that Codeine and Villahj Ideeut would agree with me here. However, you obviously saw that it wasn't, and felt strongly enough to violate the 3-revert rule. Can you tell me how you feel, RepublicanJacobite? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so...we're just ignoring this...ok... - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 01:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia (once and for all).

We need to sort this out once and for all, here and now. The fact that Uncyclopedia has "adopted" Oscar Wilde as their "patron saint" or something is of no relevance to the man himself, who died fully 100 years before its existence. The question that should be asked as to its relevance is not whether the folks at Uncyclopedia like Wilde, but whether that information offers anything in the way of a greater understanding of Wilde himself. I argue that it does not, that it is, in fact, the most trivial piece of information in that particularly section, if not the entire article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, a lot of the "Oscar Wilde in modern popular culture" could be removed, because it isn't about him specifically, and occurred many years after his death. The mention of his importance on Uncyclopedia serves to further illustrate his legacy, as does a lot of his section. You may have never heard of Uncyclopedia, but I have never heard of Todd Haynes' 1998 film Velvet Goldmine. Should that be deleted as well? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is pretty much irrelevant, per se, but certainly irrelevant with regard to Oscar Wilde. If you think other things in the article are also irrelevant, they too should be eliminated. - Nunh-huh 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But why? Why is Uncyclopedia irrelevant with regard to Oscar Wilde, when the numerous references to and quotes from him that exist on the site clearly point to his notability there? I maintain that the whole point of the Wilde in modern popular culture section is to provide examples of and defend Wilde's notability, which the mention of Uncyclopedia clearly does. Am I mistaken in my understanding of this section? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Because when an unimportant thing makes a reference to an important thing, it's of no interest. When an important thing references something, it may or may not be worth knowing, but when an unimportant thing does, it's of no significance. It's the importance of the thing making the reference and not the importance of the thing being referenced, that makes it worthy of inclusion. In general, trivia sections are discouraged, and rightly so, as so many of us can't distinguish what's important (e.g. Gilbert and Sullivan basing an operetta on Oscar Wilde) from completely disposable factoids (e.g. a mere mention of Oscar Wilde on, say, The Family Guy or a web site). You're right in understanding that many things placed in the "popular culture" section should be removed. - Nunh-huh 06:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing I find ironic here is that had I not made an effort to improve the readability of a reference that has been in place on this page since sometime in 2006, it would in all likelihood still be there. Guess this is what happens when one tries to help Wikipedia. -- Codeine (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Error(s)

{{editprotected}}

Inthe section entitled, Wilde's Sexuality, the first sentence contains a spelling error. The end of the sentence reads ...bisexual, homosexual, and paederastic. I believe it should read...bisexual, homosexual, and pederastic., per the spelling root word, Pederasty, not being spelt without an 'a' preceding the first 'e'. — Johnl1479^(talk) 03:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter? The word was commonly spelled that way ("ae") through Wilde's lifetime, and is still spelled that way as a secondary spelling - see Pederasty. If this is really important, the page protection expires in a little while. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of ignorance of British spelling. Paed- is a common spelling in British English, as in paedophile, paediatrics, etc. It comes from the Greek root word paidos meaning a boy or child. As such it should be totally acceptable in a British themed article such as this. Dabbler (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

Should it not be mentioned that Oscar Wilde was British in addition to Irish as Ireland was part of the UK for his whole lifetime? Mnealon (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You could but it will be reverted ad nauseum. In the UK, everyone is British by official nationality but very few people would claim to be British except for special reasons in Northern Ireland; they think of themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh as that is the constituent nation that they identify with. I do think of myself as having British ancestry because I have English, Irish (from pre-independence days) and Scottish forebears, but I am probably unusual and I don't live in the UK. Its not like the United States where you would say you are an American first and a Floridian if someone presses you. Dabbler (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a little mistaken in that many Brits do identify as British, however they are in a minority. I know this as I myself am British. Mnealon (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilde was Anglo-Irish, no? His father was a famous Anglo-Irish doctor so presumably he would be too. --69.123.112.18 (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never read Wilde's father's self-definition as "Anglo-Irish" and even were this claim substantiated I would not presume to attribute the beliefs of a father to his son, but here's how Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde described himself: "I am not English. I am Irish - which is quite another story..." in Richard Ellmann, Oscar Wilde, p. 372. I think it is only fair and accurate that that self-definition takes priority on an article on his life. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Article and Citation needed

Coming here through the DYN at the Main Page, I think this article is in a terrible shape, a lot of controversial, or just important unsourced statesmant plague the article. So I won't plague the article with tons of {{fact}} tags, I copied some below. I think there is material to make this a FA, and I'm willing to help when we finish with the Solar System. Samuel Sol (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

His tomb in Père Lachaise was designed by sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein, at the request of Robert Ross, who also asked for a small compartment to be made for his own ashes. Ross's ashes were transferred to the tomb in 1950. the first part coudl use a citation

Wilde died of cerebral meningitis on 30 November 1900. Different opinions are given as to the cause of the meningitis; Richard Ellmann claimed it was syphilitic; Merlin Holland, Wilde's grandson, thought this to be a misconception, noting that Wilde's meningitis followed a surgical intervention, perhaps a mastoidectomy; Wilde's physicians, Dr. Paul Cleiss and A'Court Tucker, reported that the condition stemmed from an old suppuration of the right ear (une ancienne suppuration de l'oreille droite d'ailleurs en traitement depuis plusieurs années) and did not allude to syphilis. Most modern scholars and doctors agree that syphilis was unlikely to have been the cause of his death. everything here needs to be sourced

Wilde was imprisoned first in Pentonville and then in Wandsworth prison in London, and finally transferred in November to Reading Prison, some 30 miles west of London. Wilde knew the town of Reading from happier times when boating on the Thames and also from visits to the Palmer family, including a tour of the famous Huntley & Palmers biscuit factory which is quite close to the prison. looks uncontroversial, but could use a source just for guarantees

Charles Gill (pros.): What is "the love that dares not speak its name?"

Wilde:

What's the source for the citation?

These are the most glaring ones I saw.

Some other things, the Work section is just a List of Works by Oscar Wilde and could move to an article about it. There is a need to talk a bit abuot his work, his writting style, themes etc. Oscar is famous both for his life style and for his writting style, and both parts should be mentioned on the article.

While is there a box for his play but not for his prose? Samuel Sol (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wit / Dying words

Journalist "Mr Wilde, why is America so violent?" Oscar "Why because their wallpaper is so ugly."

He kept up the wit unto death. "I think you know I am dying beyond my means." was a late remark. Last words were reputedly "That wallpaper is terrible. One of us must have to go."  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 05:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The last words is one of those legends repeated so often that it has almost become fact. It is, however incorrect. Please see this section [4] in the archives where this has been discussed before or read Ellmans's book. Actually, according to the available sources the "beyond my means" statement was made closer to his last day. I have never seen the America/wallpaper quote before. Do you have a source - book or internet - for it? Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Silentium Amoris

This poem was put in the list of poetry works as a separate publication by 98.162.176.204. However, it hasn't been published separately in that year (and maybe never, but the Wilde bibliographies by Stuart Mason I looked into end around 1910). So MarnetteD was right in removing it. Just for the record. Glatisant (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Hello, folks! Months ago, I began an expansion of the lede following WP:LEDE, suggesting about three paragraphs which completely summarize the full article which follows. Since I was last here, the lede saw some substantial changes, but still doesn't meet the requirements in Wiki policy. I'm not familiar enough with Oscar Wilde to know what's most important to highlight in the lede, but I do know that the current lede would make me question if this article's good status should be revoked. I'm hoping someone can give it a shot. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)