Talk:Oscar Wilde/Archive 4

Was Oscar Wilde Anglo-Irish?

As a very distant relative of Oscar's on his mother's side, I would state that his family is the epitome of the old term Anglo-Irish. The Anglo-Irish were the upper and middle class professionals of Ireland during the 18th and 19th centuries. They were usually of Irish origin, but adopted the manners of the English and the religion of the established church and thereby acquiring that professional education (e.g. law or medicine) generally forbidden to Catholics. To describe someone as Anglo-Irish does not make them English or any less Irish but it does pin them down in their social milieu. Wilde was able to move easily into English society because of his background. Dabbler 14:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He may be Anglo-Irish, but he was born as an Irishman in Ireland, so I'd think that the place of one's birth would be of more importance than superseeding it with a quirky historical term. Certainly, the terms are not interchangable, and his place of birth take precedence. Certainly his actual family were in favour of Irish Idependence, so I'd suggest that your distant relation to the Wilde's doesn't lend any credibility to your ideas on the Wilde family. Sean de Faoite

Being Anglo-Irish and in favour of Irish independence were not mutually exclusive. Revolutionary activists Constance Gore-Booth and Roger Casement were both Anglo-Irish as was the first president of the Irish Free State Douglas Hyde. I would not say that it is a quirky historical term, it precisely describes Wilde's background and is thus encyclopedic. Just because some people consider the term archaic today doesn't justify banning the term retrospectively. Natalie West 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard his ancestors were from the Netherland.--1523 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wilde himself took the line that "Just because one is born in a stable, one doesn't have to be a horse". Ahassan05 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)ahassan05

That was Wellington. Arniep 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As in Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington born in Dublin (or not). Dabbler 00:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wellington said it as jibe at his shallow English contemporaries, it's meaning is often misunderstood. Wilde said that, "God created the Irish to prevent the English from boring themselves to death". Not very Anglo! -86.42.129.250 01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that (as an Australian) I was very confused by the term "Anglo-Irish." I always thought that it meant of mixed heritage, i.e. partly English and partly Irish. Wikipedia appears to agree with this (probably bastardised) Australian meaning, at Anglo. I've just added a link to the intended historical meaning at Anglo-Irish, but I really think this should be clarified. I don't really have confidence in my understanding of the whole British Isles nomenclature, so I'd prefer someone else to do it. I'll think of something else if no one takes up the offer soon. -postglock 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's been a week since I posted this comment, and I was about to be bold and change the Anglo-Irish reference to something more (internationally?) clear. I've noticed that in the meantime CaveatLector has reverted edits to this by 195.217.52.130 (not me!) and hence thought I should give him/her the opportunity to comment on this here. I'll give it another few days. -postglock 01:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish is linked, and it's a term with a specific meaning that applies to Wilde. I don't see why it should be removed. Anyone confused by the term can click on it and get to a very decent article describing its meaning. john k 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It might, however, make sense to just describe him as "Irish" in the intro, and to reserve "Anglo-Irish" for the first paragraph of the next section, describing his family background. john k 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My point was that Anglo-Irish does not appear to have a specific meaning internationally, as decribed (for example) under "Australian usage" at Anglo. Even Anglo-Irish suggests that this intended meaning has (perhaps) only historical connotations. I just looked up my Oxford American Dictionary, and it gives several meanings, including the intended one and also "of mixed Irish and English parentage." I think this information should be added to the Anglo-Irish article anyway, but perhaps we can replace the usage in this article with something less ambiguous? -postglock 05:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no less ambiguous term. An "Anglo-Irish" family is clearly referring to the particular group within Ireland, not to someone of mixed background. From context, it's quite clear which meaning is intended, and there's a link explaining that meaning in the article itself. john k 10:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is no less ambiguous phrase, then "Anglo-Irish" will have to be acceptable, however I don't see how it's necessarily clear here. Surely a family may have mixed heritage? -postglock 05:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As is pointed out in Anglo-Irish, many of them did have mixed heritage. They were the upper and middle classes of Ireland who were educated in the British way and comparatively mobile in Victorian times, they often lived. worked and married in other parts of the world while retaining their connection to Ireland. My own ancestors would have considered themselves to be Anglo-Irish, yet there were Scots, English and even French members. Dabbler 09:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, as an American (admittedly, one over 50 and who has spent a couple of years in London) I was familiar with this term and understood its British Isles meaning, even though it would be used differently in the U.S. - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well the consensus appears to be that most (all?) people here apart from me are familiar with the intended meaning of the term, so I'll leave it as it is. -postglock 07:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The term is confusing, even in Ireland. So how can the rest of the world understand it. Wilde considered himself Irish and always referred to himself as so. Anglo-Irish is a self appointed term, and it does not sit comfortably with many Irish people. It is mainly a pre Catholic Emancipation (1829) term and would be questionable in Wilde's time. Jerricco 23:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The term was used by my father who died in 2004 to describe our family background, so I don't think that the term died out back in 1829. He also considered himself to be Irish, so the terms are not mutually exclusive. One is an (old-fashioned) social classification, the other a description of ethnicity. The term as defined in Anglo-Irish is quite clear. Dabbler 02:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people will refer to an Anglo-Irish background, which I have on my father's side too, but his side never considered themselves Anglo-Irish in his memory. That might have been the case going way way back. Anglo-Irish is more associated with Church of Ireland people who ruled Ireland exclusively (under the penal laws), for a couple of hundred years. Jerricco 09:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, my father and grandparents considered themselves Irish though their accents were quite English sounding. However, they also used the term Anglo-Irish as they were Church of Ireland, and some of my ancestors had been lawyers and doctors back in Victorian times. Dabbler 11:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Talking about accents, Oscar had a Dublin lilt when he first arrived in Britain. The term Anglo-Irish is an anachronism to this particular time period. It would be in error to refer to him as Anglo-Irish on the basis he was a member of the Church of Ireland, which appears to be Dabbler's reason for inclusion of the term. Where would that leave many Church of Ireland people today who would probably shudder to be referred to as Anglo-Irish. There must be a cut-off point for it's use, whether time-wise or other. Jerricco 13:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should check out what it says on Anglo-Irish for what I think, not rely just on what is written in brief notes here. I quite accept that the term is not in general use today, all I am saying here is that claims that it had died out by Wilde's time are manifestly erroneous and it is still used in some circles today. See this Trinity College, Dublin website discussing a M.Phil. course in Anglo-Irish literature with a list of "Anglo-Irish" authors that it discusses. [1] Or try this Amazon review which suggests that Wilde has been clasified as English but actually had Irish roots and describes him as Anglo-Irish [2]. Here is a short article about Anglo-Irish writers [3]. Dabbler 14:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt about it, if you put ("Oscar Wilde" + "Anglo Irish" + writers) into Google, you will surely get hits. The word "Irish" covers all sections of Ireland's writers, both Gaelic language writings and English language writings. You miss the point, Oscar Wilde was Irish, and not just "Irish roots". Next someone will be suggesting DNA testing. I am beginning to figure that you don't understand what the term "Irish" means. Being Irish is a mixture of everybody and everything that has come before, that has shaped the Ireland of today. It's one melting cauldron of people, places and things, and that's what being Irish means to most people. Northern Ireland is getting there. Jerricco 16:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that an unknown ISP appears who has never edited anywhere else on Wikipedia to support Jerricco who has unilaterally decided to go against the consensus already established here but maybe does not want to violate the 3R rule. I appreciate that you have a major POV problem with Anglo-Irish but it is a POV not a factual objection. I have demonstrated that it is a fair description, just because you personally don't like it does not mean that it should be eliminated. Dabbler 12:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I can only second Dabbler's call for an admin to oversee this situation. I have called for a new consensus to be reached (if one is needed betond what has already been written on this subject) and pointed out the Jerricco sockpuppet in my edit summaries. User Dabbler even tried to reach a compromise by removing the Anglo Irish term from the intro, but this was also ignored. A look at the history page for the last 24 hrs seems to show that the 3RR has been pushed to its limits by Jerricco. So, again I also request that an admin take part in this situation, Thanks. 4.227.178.221 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Well that was odd. Without signing out my entry above was applied without my signature so here it is.MarnetteD | Talk 13:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points here - of course Wilde was Irish, just as Yeats and Parnell were Irish. All of them were also Anglo-Irish, which is a term referring to a specific segment of Ireland's population - the part belonging to the Church of Ireland, who were the Irish ruling classes prior to Catholic Emancipation, and to some extent thereafter. It's worth noting that, as of when I just looked at the articles, Parnell's father is described as an Anglo-Irish landowner. Yeats's family, on the other hand, is simply described as Protestant (but Yeats is in the category "Anglo-Irish artists".) The term "Anglo-Irish" is a descriptive one, and I see no reason not to use it for people like Wilde, Parnell, and Yeats (the latter two of whom, of course, like many of their co-religionists, were nevertheless enormous Irish Nationalists, which cannot be said of Wilde). john k 14:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The pecking order would be Irish first. Anglo-Irish is a term to be used in context. I am not against using the term Anglo-Irish in the proper context, but it should be used with caution, and not just because a person is a member of the Church of Ireland. Jerricco 17:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish is an archaic, misleading term. Wilde was born in Ireland, of Irish parentage, of an Irish nationalist family, and he stated "I am Irish, not English, which is a very different thing." Obviously those championing the use of an obsolete term are operating with a questionable agenda.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.241.185 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 October 2006.

There is obviously some nationalism going on here. Modern members of the Anglican Church of Ireland may well be offended by the term Anglo-Irish as it seems to cast doubt on how Irish they really are, and to which state their loyalty lies. The term Anglo-Irish has probably faded in use since independence, however the author Iris Murdoch described her own family background as Anglo-Irish in her autobiography. Arniep 16:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he can be called Anglo-Irish, he definitely can not be called English. Unfortunately several category entries have him listed as such. At the time he was born in Ireland, as a subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Which makes him neither English nor British, but Irish. This isn't a case of nationalism, but correctness. Yesterday I removed the English categories, but neglected (through ignorance) to explain why. Subject to discussion, I intend to remove them again in two weeks' time, unless compelling reasons otherwise are presented. 83.67.41.138 11:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who believes that all Anglo-Irish are Irish and not English, I say don't wait; be bold and remove the categories or better still replace them with the Irish equivalents. Dabbler 14:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal. Wilde was not English. - Jmabel | Talk 01:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to the term "Anglo-Irish".By that logic the Beatles and Oasis should be cited as Hiberno-Saxon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.101.222.28 (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Oh dear, oh dear. I'm afraid that you in the US get yourselves in a terrible muddle when it comes to the question of nationality, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. Oscar Wilde was an Irishman, but his legal nationality was British. This is absolutely fact, and completely unequivocal. At the time of his life Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom, alongside England, Wales, and Scotland. In 1922, partition created the Irish Free State and broke away from the United Kingdom. If he had been living, then Wilde's legal nationality would have become Irish at that time, but given that he died before partition, his legal historical nationality is British. Oscar was quite correct and entitled to call himself an Irishman, but his passport would have been that of a British National, in the same way that I call myself an Englishman but my passport states British. Zeppbuddy

Michael Collins was in point of fact also a "British citizen" for nearly all of his life. Does that mean it should be mentioned in his wiki entry instead of simply saying he was an Irishman? You argument, Zeppbuddy, is thus debunked. Is the term "Anglo Indian" also used for Indians in colonial India educated in the English way? I doubt it. Only with famous Irish people it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.156.18 (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish is a term I know to refer to people who's ethnicity is english and and reside in Ireland. I don't quite understand the dispute, it's no different to terms Irish-American, Anglo-American, etc... I commented though to correct Zeppbuddy. Wilde's nationality at birth and death was British but the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1956 provided Irish citizenship for anyone born in the island of Ireland before independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realtóg (talk • contribs) 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeppbuddy did not the Act of Union of 1800 create the the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/The_Union and http://www.actofunion.ac.uk/actofunion.htm meaning that his passport acknowledged Ireland?? By the way the Irish Free State was not created by partition but the other way round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.213.18 (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on Oscar Wilde and Uncyclopedia

There is currently a debate underway as to whether a reference to Uncyclopedia is relevant in an article about Oscar Wilde.---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• First RfC response: I was extremely torn about this matter, but the deletion argument hinged on the assertion the Unencyclopedia is non-notable. While not wholly untrue, its notable enough to have an article here, and Oscar Wilde is a HUGE part of there site. I think that since Unencyclopedia is under the Wikia foundation, and thus relevant to this site and Wikipedia's readers, the fact can stay.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Leave it in as a short snippet This whole issue was all discussed at length on this very Talk Page a couple of years ago and the short sentence or so on Uncyclopedia was deemed to be worthy of inclusion. I have been editing this page for several years now and while I originally thought Uncyclopedia to be unenecyclopedic, I changed my mind and now believe that this deserves a short mention. Its certainly as important as some of the other Pop culture references. The newer version reads better than the one before. Dabbler (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not. In every single discussion of the issue, going back to '05, the overwhelming majority of comments were that the Uncyclopedia information was unnecessary and irrelevant. The consensus was never that it "was deemed to be worthy of inclusion." Quite the opposite. Wilde is important to Uncyclopedia, yes, but Uncyclopedia is not important to Wilde. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove whole thing. It's trivial information irrelevant to Wilde's work, plus Uncyclopedia is definitely not a reliable, third-party, published source that can be used as a reference. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not being used as a reference. It's being commented on.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Commented on by Anonymous Wikipedians, not by a reliable, third-party, published source.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 12:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not being "commented" on, there is no POV here, and the only question should be whether its a fact that should be included here. Currently it is mentioned briefly as a fact, which can be checked if anyone chooses to do so by clicking on the internal link to a Wikipedia article which should contain verifiable references to its existence and content. Dabbler (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Leave it in as a short snippet per Dabbler. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. A short snippet works well in the page. - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speaking as one who removed it many many times it should be noted that those of us who commented on it in the past felt that, although there was a general consensus against its inclusion, there was no way to keep it permenantly off of the page. We settled on allowing a short snippet. Then, when there was a short lived "Oscar Wilde in popular culture page", it was moved to it and kept off of this page. The deletionistas later voted to do away with that page and it eventually migrated back over here. While I agree that it isn't really important to this page or Oscar's life keeping a short snippet helps to prevent edit warring here and is probably the way to go. It won't break my heart if the consensus is to get rid of it but be prepared as it will return weekly if not daily as an edit. MarnetteD | Talk 05:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Partial removal only include information which is cited by a third party reliable source. So replace with the following:

The Wikipedia parody Uncyclopedia contains many fictional quotes attributed to him.

• Remove Simply not noteworthy. Just because people using a wiki parody are interested in him, does not make it notable. Rotovia (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

--Otterathome (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to include it, we should cite secondary sources because Uncyclopedia is not itself a reliable source. The Hindu looks ok, and I've found another print source: "Wikia.com lists fastest-growing wikis; Site gathers the gatherers of popular information," Grand Rapid Press (Michigan) September 18, 2006,

There's even a Wikipedia spoof, Uncyclopedia. Its entry for the War of 1812 reads: "Also known as 'The War Nobody Wanted to Name.'"

Uncyclopedia offers this quote from Oscar Wilde on the definition of wiki: "It's like kiwi, except inside out."

Anyhow, I doubt this is WP:WEIGHTy in any case. It's truly scraping the barrel when it comes to referencing a towering figure like this. I'd favor removal, but if you keep, please add this source. My opinion is that it belongs in the article on Uncyclopedia (as it's one of their most common gags), but that it shouldn't belong here. Cool Hand Luke 01:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dump it. It's Uncyclopedia's job to parody stuff, so it's hardly notable that they parody Wilde. If there was (and there may well be) a reliable source that comments on the fact that Wilde's witty quotes are a popular subject of parody (in Monty Python, to give one example), that would be notable and worth mentioning. Also, Uncyclopedia content is volatile to say the least, so any reference to their content isn't reliable. The whole article could be replaced tomorrow by some other gag. ("Oscar Wilde is the informal name of an award given to the best "Girls Gone Wild" video...") RedSpruce (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I note that most of the people urging that the Uncyclopedia reference be "dumped" or "removed" don't seem to be long term or regular monitors and editors of this page. Those of us who are, such as MarnetteD and myself, accept that a snippet is a necessary evil to avoid continuous addition and deletion of the material. We agree that in an ideal world it would probably not be included, but Wikipedia is not an ideal world and we don't want the Wikistress of having to be continually editing it out several times a week. Dabbler (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Of what possible relevance is it that many, or even "most," of those calling for the removal of this material are not "long term or regular monitors and editors of this page"? Does that make their opinions somehow less valuable? I would counter by noting that many of those calling for the material to be kept are also regular contributors to Uncyclopedia, which, one could argue, raises the question of whether they have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. But, such an argument would be spurious, yes? Frankly, if it is Wikistress that worries you, I will let you off the hook. If the material is removed, I promise to regularly patrol the article in order to make sure it is never readded. Indeed, I'll go one better: let's remove the popular culture section in its entirety. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing you here often! I've never heard of most of the so-called "popular culture" references here or in other articles and I agree that they do not really say much beyond the fact that the subject is notable which can be demonstrated in many other ways. Dabbler (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Tricky. I'm generally against popular culture references in general, but there are certain people whose presence in popular culture does need to be mentioned and Wilde is one of them. Uncyclopedia can certainly be reliably sourced, for example see here, so I'm leaning towards inclusion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"References in popular culture" section

This section is nothing but trivia, and as far as I can tell none of it can be worked into the article. Therefore, the proper course of action seems to be removing the section. Any objections? faithless (^speak) 03:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier, here, with the same conclusion. Go ahead! --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, gods be praised, the damn thing is dead! And the people did rejoice! Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

I am doing a term theme on Oscar Wilde and I while I was reading the article, the name, Alfred Taylor, came up. I have not seen this name in my research. Alfred A. Taylor is said to have had a relationship of some kind with Wilde and the start of the section about his trial and imprisonment. Maybe it is a different Alfred Taylor but I cannot find anything about the man which concerns Oscar.

I believe that something more should be said about he and Oscar or his name should be removed from the article.

The sentence in question is: "The libel trial became a cause célèbre as salacious details of Wilde's private life with Alfred Taylor and Lord Alfred Douglas began to appear in the press." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRic1990 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have access to Ellman's biography (or any others actually as he is mentioned in all of them) you will find his name in the index and that will lead you to information about him. In brief, he was the man who ran the house where Wilde and Bosie dallied with male prostitutes. They were prosecuted together in the trial that ended with a hung jury. They were then tried seperately with Taylor being tried first. He was found guilty of gross indecency and this is considered (at least in part) to have been an influence on Wilde's trial and conviction. The AA Taylor that you linked in your question was a politician from Tennessee and never even met Wilde. Something more could be said about him but there is no reason to remove his name from the article. MarnetteD | Talk 14:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Union misunderstanding

A recent addition reads: "Thomas Toughill in his 2008 book The Ripper Code reveals that Wilde was refused admission to the Oxford Union, a clear sign that Wilde's lifestyle at Oxford was not consistent with Victorian morality". The conclusion here, "… a clear sign..." etc, looks a bit like WP:NOR, but in any case the whole thing may be a misreading: According to the authoritative Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde it was the author's volume of poems that was refused: "...the Oxford Union refused admission to his Poems in 1881." Suggesting a revert. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree Old Moonraker. The entry also seems to be bordering on WP:POV. The entry seemed a bit off from my memory of the bios that I have read so I'd also like to say good job on the research end of things. Please feel free to remove or alter it per your research. MarnetteD | Talk 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding. Oscar Wilde applied to join the Oxford Union the autumn of 1874, but failed to be elected. (His poems were rejected by the Union in 1881.) See pages 183-185 in Thomas Toughill's "The Ripper Code". The author reproduces a photo of Wilde's failed entry in the Union file, "Probational Members Subscriptions" (022/8/F2/1). Regards, Bampot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bampot (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Union expanded, with ref from a noted biography. Surely the record of OW's membership subs couldn't have been overlooked until now, could it? --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It has! Toughill also consulted the Union's "Index of Members" for 1873-90 (022/8/A2/1) and found that that file does not contain Wilde's name. In short, Oscar Wilde was blackballed by the Oxford Union. This strikes me as an important discovery. Regards, Bampot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bampot (talk • contribs) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If so, it should be included, with the point that it throws doubt on the accounts in earlier biographies. The detailed citation, including the source of any such comment as "not consistent with Victorian morality", should be included in the "Notes" section. Would there be any value in uploading the image of the register? It is acceptable as Template:PD-art and would seem incontrovertible. Having only read a synopsis of Toughill's work I retain some reservations: Amazon.co.uk describes the "stunning" discovery that Wilde included in The Picture of Dorian Gray secret, coded messages revealing the identity of "Jack the Ripper" (spoiler warning: Montague Druitt), but this does not mean that it couldn't be a reliable source. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Toughill's research in the archives of the Oxford Union is surely important in its own right. The pertinent photos which appear in his book are reproduced there with the "kind permission" of the Union. so I don't think I'm authorised to upload them. I've no doubt though that they are faithful images of the original material. I'll think about another entry. Regards, Bampot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bampot (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've simply written that Wilde was blackballed by the Oxford Union. The question now to consider is why Wilde was barred. Regards, Bampot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bampot (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Order of Chaeronea founding date

This article implies that the Order of Chaeronea existed prior to Wilde's trials. The wiki page for the Order itself, while listing Wilde as a member, claims it was founded in 1897. Anybody know the right date?

Linking "gross indecency"

A question for those that have Oscar's page on your watchlist. Today User:Ssilvers linked the term "gross indecency" to the page Sodomy law. I tweaked it a bit to take it to the UK section of that page so that readers did not have to search and scroll to find the reason that the link lead to this page. In reading that UK section there wasn't much that added to the understanding of "gross indecency" especially in relation to Wilde. In that section there was a link to this page - Labouchere Amendment. This page is much more specific in its relation to the term and it is directly related to how Wilde wound up in gaol. I am wondering whether we might not link the term to this page. One problem is that it does rather violate WP:EGG. If it were me alone I would be bold and apply WP:IAR to the situation but I thought that I would sound out those of you who take care of this page first. So please add your thoughts when you get a chance and thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a specfic sodomy law at the time, but it wasn't used against Wilde and shouldn't be linked. As the "gross indecency" legislation under which Wilde was charged has its own subparagraph, it can have its own link: Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885#Section 11, piped as required. This in turn links to Labouchere Amendment. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Old Moonraker. I have made adjustments based on your suggestion but please feel free to alter them if you see a better way to handle things. MarnetteD | Talk 13:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've used your format for another footnote. Not WP:OVERLINKING I hope. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Max Beerbohm

The article Max Beerbohm has long been feeble, but it took a very recent "correction" (well intentioned, I suppose, but wrong) to impel me to reread the article (within the last hour). I was appalled by what I found there, and started to fix it. The article tells us that Beerbohm became part of the Oscar Wilde set, which I think is at least partly true; certainly there are artistic links. In "real life" I've come across plenty of people who profess to be devotees or even students of this or that work by Wilde but haven't even heard of Beerbohm; however, I'm hoping that editors of WP are better read than people I meet in RL, and that some of them will read this talk page on the Wilde article. Unfortunately it's been some time since I read a work about Beerbohm and I shan't have time to immerse myself in Beerbohmiana in the forseeable future; this is why I'm not offering to work on the article myself, though I might help out here and there. I don't think that Beerbohm is on any high school syllabus, and for this or other reason his article is fairly free of the puerile edits that afflict others (e.g. Jacob Riis) who I would have thought were safely dead and outside mass teen semi-consciousness. -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Lipstick on tomb

I deleted this sentence:

The numerous spots on the tombstone are lipstick traces from admirers.

since the reference goes to a copy of this very Wikipedia page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Thurston (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pederasty

Shouldn't it be made clear that the 'defense of pederasty' that the article Oscar Wilde made was a defense of the classical idea of pederasty. To me it suggested that it was a defense of having sex with young boys but then there's no mention of this. Also there are very few references around this area it seems to me like someone is trying to deliberately suggest that Oscar Wilde openly defended the idea of having sex with young boys. Even if this is true there needs to be more references. This part is really confusing.

"Expand Section" demand in "Works"

Is the {{expand|section|date=September 2009}} tag, just added in the "Works" section. appropriate when WP:SS is being used to link to the full article? I'm inclined to remove it.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maynard

This is not a reliable source. 1. It lacks appropriate citations. 2. It barely mentions Oscar Wilde. 3. It promotes a minority view. It cannot be used in any kind of manner to say that this is a fact. It is an off hand claim in a barely credible work. The lack of appropriate Wilde biographies is telling. Either use sources -on Wilde- or don't. Don't slip fringe sources in and push a POV. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been out of wiki for a while, so I'm not quite sure I want to step into this, but I'm not sure where you make the estimation that this is a "barely credible work". Blackwell is a very respected press and a quick Google search revealed that John Maynard is a Professor at NYU (a very respected institution). If you feel as though the source does not talk enough about Wilde, that's a valid point and may warrant looking at the source he appears to be citing (Sedgwick, maybe?). Calling this article "barely credible" or "fringe" is downright disrespectful to both a reputable press and a reputable institution. Considering your UserPage, it seems you should know better. I'm unfortunately far away from my copy of Epistemology, perhaps there's a more lengthy discussion in there that Maynard is referring to? (This is not to say that I agree with what this citation says. I don't, in fact, and I think it's also a horrible distillation of the Greco-Roman sexual society Wilde loved to boot. However, there's no reason to be so blithely dismissive of a source. I also don't know how long you've been fighting this battle on the page itself, so I don't mean to imply that frustration might not be implicated in your tone here. AGF and all...) --CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 14:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the work? Please show where it uses any standard Wilde related sources? Please state where he is an expert in Wilde's biography? The article is not academically sound and I don't care where someone gets a professorship, such qualifications are not allowed to override standard policy. The article is not an academic essay. It is an opinion piece at best. It mentions Wilde in passing. It has no right to override the claims made in the biographies by Wilde scholars. He is not an expert in the field. His work is not even in the field. Wilde sources on the matter only. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions about the article's merit, which so far have proved baseless and built upon nothing more than polemics, are frankly irrelevant. Your cries that the article "is not academically" sound is an "original research" opinion to which you are entitled, but should not affect the composition of the article. This idea that the article is not "academically sound" is itself ludicrous considering the author has a much more impressive (by light years) stated CV than yours. A cursory glance at Maynard's bio page shows that he is a well established authority in Victorian literature (of which Wilde is a part). Your statement that this is "not an academic essay" would be laughable if it weren't frustratingly naive of the fact that this article is appearing in a peer reviewed collection of essays from one of the most respected publishing houses in the academic world. Why you decidedly spit on people who have had this amount of training and research experience is beyond me. This is not policy. Policy states that if sources must be reliable, and considering that Maynard has a prestigious university position and is publishing this article in a prestigious press, it's tantamount to hubris to simply rule this not an RS by your own personal fiat. You do NOT get to make an estimation of the content of the source. That is WP:OR. Unless you have another RS that engages with Maynard's thesis, "standard policy" dictates that these edits should stand, whether or not YOU personally agree with their content. ETA: By the way, Sedgwick is a "Wilde related source". --CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 19:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have verified that your complaint is not in meeting with our policies. The article is not scholarly nor academic. That is seen from anyone looking at it. I own a copy of the book. The matter deals with my field. I have applied appropriate policies. You don't like it? Then you don't like how things operate. If you want to introduce a controversial idea, follow the rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll note again that I don't really have a dog in this fight (not a Wilde scholar, not a Victorian scholar, not the OP and not really interested in this "controversial idea"), but I can't just allow a flawed citation of policy to stand. Whether you have a copy of the book or not is irrelevant. You're estimation of the value of the information in the article is also irrelevant. I don't know who you are or what your field even is, so I can't make an estimation of whether you truly have the credentials to evaluate this source. The article looks perfectly scholarly to me. But these two things are ALSO irrelevant. The article is published in a reputable academic source from a reputable press. I don't see how we can, just through the discretion of one editor (mainly, YOU) deem this as falling outside of WP:RS. You can't just say these things. You alone do not get to make that ruling. Unless things changed drastically at Wikipedia in the last year, such things operate by consensus. If you have specific complaints and counterproofs to what is within the article, state them. Otherwise you're doing nothing more than WP:OR. --CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Research means only to put forth an idea -in an article- that is not backed up in scholarship. It has nothing to do with applying judgment in determining reliable sources. You are very wrong on the matter and there is no reason for you to even continue. You have a problem, take it up with some noticeboard. They will simply tell you the same thing - it lacks the appropriate material to be deemed as scholarly (i.e. lacks citations), it does not directly deal with him (and thus barely has any credibility in regards for a fringe issue) and it represents a minority view. This three things mean that the source does not warrant any kind of inclusion. If it was in the Wilde sources, then it would be attributed to a Wilde source. Your constantly arguing the point is becoming disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the WP:RS noticeboard should know about this matter. Your singular ownership of the article, your refusal to engage in anything close to discourse, and your lack of civility in this discussion have been troubling. Disagreeing with someone, even (and especially) in relation to policy, does not warrant an accusation of "disruption". You are not royalty here. --CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ownership of the article? I have merely pointed out the obvious and I have not said that the info could not be added if it was sourced to an appropriate work. Your rhetoric is telling about the nature of your concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Source_in_Oscar_Wilde. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if we are to decide that this is a reliable source in general (which I am partly leaning toward from claims made about his scholarship but am not convinced on yet), AT BEST all the ref would do is demonstrate that THAT ONE PERSON holds that opinion, not that it's an accepted opinion by a consensus of experts on the topic and certainly NOT that it's a fact, as the version that people edit warred to return would have us believe. Anyone with any experience in academia knows lots of people have lots of opinions and that often they are presented as fact with no actual proof of any of it, but the source is stating it as an opinion and not a fact so why are editors here trying to present it as fact? That's a NPOV violation right there, clearly, whetehr it was intended or not. Therefore I have to side with Ottava here for the time being until this can be hammered out, because there's no pressing need to have this opinion here at all, and it certainly cannot be presented as if it were a fact without more references. DreamGuy (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare was a major influence in Oscar Wilde's writings, should be added to "influences"...

He wrote a lot about Shakepseare in his books, plays, and articles.

Jesse James

"Later, passing through Jesse Jame's home town in Kansas, Wilde would learn that James himself had just been assassinated by a member of his own gang, an event that sent the town into mourning and scrambling to buy Jesse's artifacts. Well aware of the romantic appeal of the social outcast, the traveler wrote in a letter home that "Americans are certainly great hero-worshippers, and always take [their] heroes from the criminal classes." http://www.literarytraveler.com/authors/wilde_west.aspx

Oscar Wild, expressed that quote for Jesse James and Americans during his trip to West. Is there any plagiarism or copyright violation with that blockquote. [1 line from Oscar Wilde has no copyright issue anyway] As far as 3 different courses I took in 2 different college tells, 2-3 sentence from an article with proper reference is no copyright violation whatsoever by anymeans. I tried to paraphrase 2 sentences, but they are so "tight" they leave no space for paraphrasing, while my english grammar is not good, if I try to keep the literature beauty of sentences with quotes, then again they [may] claim it is plagiarism. Any comment or help is welcome. Kasaalan (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Info on Work

I know it's a bit cheap to criticize this aspect without adding anything to the article myself, but the whole article suffers from the usual approach to Wilde's life - that he was a personality, rather than an artist. Of course, he was both things - so shouldn't there be some section on his work, plays poems and essays, his legacy, his style, etc? It's a shame that such an inspiring writer is once again stereotyped as a controversial flamboyant gay man, with little attention paid to the substance of his thought and feeling.--Coolazice (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a focus on sensationalism, but think the work should be weaved into a more chronological development of his life. I'm going to put something in soon.Ktlynch (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)