Talk:Oscar Wilde/Archive 5

Neutral Point of View

I'm only a casual observer, but the opening paragraph of this article doesn't seem to come from the required "neutral point of view." It uses adjectives such as "outstanding" and "glittering" and calls The Importance of Being Earnest a "masterpiece." There are no citations for the sources of these descriptions, and so the opening paragraph, to me, reads more like a review of his life from an ardent fan than the short, neutral biography I would have expected. As someone who was checking this article for information in earnest, I have to think that if the opening paragraph is so glowing, then the rest of the article may not be as accurate and neutral as it ought to be. If these descriptions come from other works, perhaps citations are in order, or else neutrality could be restored for the sake of accuracy. Verminjerky (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Those descriptions are within the article. The lead summarises them. Citations are not a problem. He really was very good at Greek. He did command entire salons. And Earnest is his masterpiece. --Ktlynch (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I sounded a little aggressive there. I think those descriptions are justified since they are in the article, perhaps since they are used for brevity they sound intense when the lead is read over. --Ktlynch (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't follow the WP:SS link to Earnest, but "masterpiece" isn't expanded upon in the article here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Ktlynch, your replies to me seem to lack just as much objectivity as the introductory paragraph. And, yes, taken together it still feels a touch excessive, particularly given Old Moonraker's point. Verminjerky (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

LGBT anarchist

I note that the categories for Oscar also contain "LGBT anarchist". However, no source I have read, nor indeed the article itself, makes the claim that Oscar Wilde was in favour of the destruction of the state. Am I mistaken or is this category inaccurate and deservng of removal? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He was indeed an anarchist, but probably of the more philosophical variety. I know he sung praise of Kropotkin though, so I'm not sure. Zazaban (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please pardon this late response. Oscar's political activism may have been minor, or simply dwarfed by the great notability of his celebrity and works so that historians have ignored it, but what little we know and have recorded on this article already confirms his political activism. What we do know, and what is properly backed with citation on this very article, is that he did declare himself to be an anarchist; he authored The Soul of Man Under Socialism, a work with distinct libertarian socialist overtones; he praised Kropotkin; and he signed a petition to free the "Haymarket martyrs", anarchists condemned to execution following a sensational 1880s trial. We may never know the extent of Wilde's anti-statist philosophy, his view of socio-political forces, how this impacted his work, or of whether he associated with fellow anarchists, or if he ever abandoned this philosophy in favor of another. However, what cannot be in question is whether he was ever an anarchist. He was. For that he belongs in the category, and this article stands as an anarchist biography under the Anarchist Task Force; although perhaps as a decidedly "low" importance article, for the ATF's purposes. --Cast (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you must mean 1880s. Unless Oscar Wilde had a time machine I do not know about. Zazaban (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC

ooops, I already edited the date! g88keeper (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

He was an ananarchist in the sense that he favoured art as the means of control and highest importance in society, once saying "the form of government most suitable to artists is no government at all", ideally men would be free from all coercion to pursue creative endeavours as they saw fit. Obviously he was pederastic too, but he wasn't a "LGBT anarchist" in the modern sense of the phrase, nor did he have anything to do with the modern LGBT sensibility.Ktlynch (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Divorce

Several sources state that he and his wife divorced in 1893 [1]. However, neither this article, nor hers, mention divorce. Is there any real dispute about it? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

They never actually divorced as Constance gave him conditions under which she would not actually divorce him (namely, not to see Bosie) though they were bound by a "Deed of Seperation" which is essentially "living apart". Constance died before divorce proceedings were ever actually carried out, though she did change the children's and her own name back to her maiden name. My source is "The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde" by Neil McKenna. Page 432-8. Published 2005 by Basic Books. New York, New York. --HaydenDerk (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they seperated but didn't divorce. The article linked online is incorrect. --Ktlynch (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Feasting with panthers"

In the article the quote is attributed to Wilde himself, in De Profundis. I was under the impression that it came from someone else, and was a reference to the Wilde circle at the Cafe Royale (and who turned into pussycats when Wilde was sentenced). Can someone kindly check this? PiCo (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in De Profundis. Make sure you are reading the full version.Ktlynch (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Oscar Wilde/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I have reviewed this article as part of the GA Sweeps. I am Delisting this article because it no longer meets the standards of WP:WIAGA. It has numerous entire paragraphs (in some spots sequences of paragraphs) and almost entire sections without inline citations. There are even a few {{fact}} tags present in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank Miles

• He had significant sexual relationships with (in chronological order) Frank Miles, Constance Lloyd (Wilde's wife), Robbie Ross, and Lord Alfred Douglas (known as "Bosie"). Then a little later, we have:

• He even lived with the society painter Frank Miles, who was a few years his senior and may have been his lover.

These two statements do not gel. Inconsistency is a worse sin than mere inaccuracy. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been fixed now.--Ktlynch (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Split Proposal

The two long lists of 1) biographical works and 2) derivate works of his life are quite ugly, but also of lesser importance. I suggest that the full lists be preserved as split lists, and a prose summary be written for retention in the article, which only mentions the most important biographies. This would retain the information for those who want it, but provide the first time reader with a more informed, reliable and accessible introduction to biography.

This will also better reweight the biographical sections against his work, which has disappointly little attention near the end.

Ktlynch (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to support this proposal. --Narayan (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I did this a few months ago, someone can archive this section now.--Ktlynch (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Isola

In the second paragraph of "Birth and early Life", Wilde's two sisters are named as Emily and Mary. Then, out of the blue in paragraph four, we read "Isola died aged eight". Thus there seems to be something missing - perhaps someone who knows the subject better than I can improve this. Fredsie (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this has been clarified now. Isola was Wilde's younger sister, daughter of Lady Wilde.--Ktlynch (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What the Biographers Say

There have been large passages in this article pulled from the controversial book by McKenna on Wilde, largely this attempt to present a mainly sexual and homosexual aspect on him. The "biographers" do not agree with McKenna, furthermore respected reviews do have authority in how we decide what sources are to be used.

According to WP:SOURCES, "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". It is not clear that McKenna's book (Or indeed Douglas's)has this reputation. See also WP:REDFLAG. Ktlynch (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

McKenna spent five years researching his bio and is a reputable author with a very solid background. Moreover, if anyone's treatment of Wilde's sexuality is controversial, it's Ellman's - who, after all, was writing over 20 years ago and who had a particular barrow to push, namely Oscar's essentially spiritual nature. We need to mention Ellman's views, but we need to put them in context and bring the article up to date. PiCo (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

McKenna is not a reputable author, every single review - including the one you cite - criticises the book for wild speculation and sexual fantasy. Ellman's "barrow" might be genuine literary scholarship, his work on Wilde was the last in a long line of acclaimed, prize winning criticism and biography. It is not out of date. McKenna's book seems a little stronger on what Wilde has meant to other homosexuals, not on historical facts. Ktlynch (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"McKenna's finest achievement is to show how Wilde's radical gay persona was the result of a long and arduous attempt to come to terms with his sexual orientation." That's from the review that I quote - hardly an accusation wild speculation and sexual fantasy. Nor in what I wrote about Ellman did I say that he was out of date - quite the opposite, I said it "remains highly regarded." Which, incidentally, is exactly the sentiment McKenna expresses in the interview I quote (he calls it, I think, a "classic"). Getting back to McKenna's book, you seem to be saying that it was panned by the critics, but in fact it met with glowing reviews. Here are some:

• "Masterful, eminently readable" (Publishers Weekly)
• "A superb new portrait" (Washington Post)
• "McKenna's passion, wit, and good research make [the biography] compelling reading" (Booklist)
• "Outstanding" (Observer, UK)
• "The most important [book] to have been written about Wilde for many years." (Irish Independent)

And so on. Hardly the reception of someone who is not a reputable author, or of a book which is controversial.

Finally, what I'm concerned to do with this section is to move it away from an obsession with the details of who Wilde may have had sex with, and when, and to focus it on what his sexuality meant to his achievement as an artist. Ellman said one thing (Wilde's sexuality was an essentially unimportant digression from his true mission in life, which was to find salvation in the Church) and McKenna says another (Wilde was tortured by his sexuality and it forms the basis of his achievement). Both need to be touched on, but both need to be put in context. PiCo (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Using blurbs from the dust jacket for the book is always a dicey way to go. "Outstanding" could so easily be followed by the words "in its lack of insight or understanding". I am not saying that is what the review actually says but I have seen these same blurb on ads for the Saw films. McKenna assumes way too many facts that are not in evidence. One example is when he assumes a physical relationship between Wilde and Frank Miles. There is no contemporary empirical evidence to back this up. Indeed Miles was known for his predilection for young women. It needs to be pointed out that young men have lived together for centuries (and indeed this practice exists even today) without having sexual relations with each other. You admire McKenna's book and there is nothing wrong with that (I found it an interesting read myself) but it may be the one Wilde biography that compares with Frank Harris' tome in that it needs to be read with a great deal of skepticism. To try and put his theories into this article as though they are facts is a mistake. MarnetteD | Talk 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The paras I wrote/revised don't treat McKenna's theories as truths: "McKenna considers, McKenna believes, according to McKenna: this isn't a presentation of facts. The importance of McKenna lies in his interpretation of Wilde's sexuality; and Ellman, too, offers only an interpretation. The conflicting interpretations are important, because they have a bearing on Wilde's artistic achievemnt. Frankly I'd like to see all the salacious details dropped, and just stick to these two paras.PiCo (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Those blurbs were just copy and pasted from Amazon, who will say it's great to sell books.

When presenting a straight out biographical account of his life, remember that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." [WP:SOURCES]. [WP:Redflag] is also applicable.

McKenna's book - like a number of Wilde books and memoirs - is not very scholarly in this sense. For instance, The Guardian on the claim that he slept with Frank Miles, "McKenna has every right to challenge this position but he does not proffer any reference or evidence for his contrary view. " The reviewer goes on to pin point the dubious origins of several claims in the book; I could copy and paste the whole review. Here's another which doubts its reliability.

Addendeum: The Sunday Times Review Furthermore, McKenna is not a literary scholar so interpretation of Wilde's oeurve with a fantastical pyscho-sexual theme should probably not be included either. While all writers are to an extent auto-biographical, Wilde's aesthetic theories specifically refuted such ideas.

Finally it is not enough to include grand claims "qualified" by verbs such as "believes" "thinks" etc. If the source isn't reliable, it doesn't matter all too much what he believes: why don't you or I write in what we believe?Ktlynch (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments pre-GA review

I saw that this article has been listed at WP:GAC, and while I agree that such an important article should be GA (if not higher) status, I think the nomination is entirely too premature. Were I reviewing the article as it is now against the Good Article criteria, I would simply fail it. The sourcing in particular is poor, as entire paragraphs, including individual quotes, lack even one citation. Many of the book sources (Ellman, ref 2 and others, for example) do not cite page numbers. The citations are also not consistent throughout; I even see a {{fact}} tag in ref 34! There is also the matter of broad coverage of the subject matter, since the article skims over Wilde's works and their importance; rather, it seems to dwell mostly on his biography, especially his sexuality and subsequent controversies. Important, yes, but not what he's solely remembered for. Based on these observances, I suggest retracting the nomination at GAC until more thorough work has been done. I would be happy to help with sourcing difficulties, if needed. María (habla conmigo) 14:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Entirely agree that this is too far from GA status at present to be worth listing for review. The article was delisted last year for lack of references, but that's still a major problem. The references, when they do exist, are incomplete and messy. The references seem to mix explanatory notes and citations for statements/quotations, which increases the mess. Wikipedia itself appears to be used as a reference (or as the basis for a note, who knows?) at one point. The lead is far too short for an article of this length. I suggest further work and Peer Review rather than GAC. Bencherlite^Talk 14:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback, it is very useful. I admit prematurely nominating it, given the queue for GA review but perhaps I've underestimated Wilde's popualrity, as I intended on working on the areas you mention. E.g. In the last two days , I've cut back sexual speculation, included more mentions of his works, and other activities that previously had only been mentioned in passing. The article's structure and to some extent comprehensiveness have improved, and I hope to continue this trajectory in the next few days. Page number citations I agree are vital, and have left a few out since I was trying to use ref tags for elegance, but these work better for articles than books. Overall though the references have improved, most paragraphs are now cited, and there's no wild or unsourced claims.

Further suggestions for improvement are very welcome, thank you Ktlynch (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now or I would do it, but: Could someone please check this article for SPELLING mistakes/typos and missing words? There are several in any paragraph. I was surprised, I have not come across so many in any Wikipedia article on an author yet. 80.139.166.54 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am guilty here. I've been doing a lot of work recently on it and when trying to put everything into context, weave it together, balance biography and literary criticism I've often neglected details, plus it's harder to copyeidt one's own work. Though I did this knowing that it'd be better to get the thing finished before I lose steam and then have it properly proof-read. Meanwhile thanks to those who have tidied up after me ;) Ktlynch (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've copyedited the first half of the article now, and the Biographies section and they should remain relatively stable.--Ktlynch (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The 'Decline' section is also relatively finished. 'Trials' needs some more citations - MarnetteD, do you have access to "Irish Peacock and Scarlett Marquess?" - the middle section is still a work in progress. We'll get a full outside copyedit soon, before GA nomination —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktlynch (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies in not replying to your question in a timely manner. I do have this book but my access to it is limited by the fact that I have not yet found the box that it is in since my move. I hope that you get it soon as it is a fascinating read. MarnetteD | Talk 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Miscanellous to-do list

The article is approaching GA status, so here's a place to add jobs that need to be done. Of course, editors should WP:be Bold, but there are lots of things which are tricky that an individual might not be able to do himself. So here's a place to share them:

1. Seperate notes and references: 27, 46, 63 and 72 (at the time of writing) are expansions rather than citations.

2. Explore possibility of using shortened footnotes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktlynch (talk • contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Ensure consistency in placing of references either before or after punctuation.

4. All works by or about Wilde, and journals to wrote for should be italicised and linked to a wikipedia article where it exists, if not to wikisource or reliable public domain text of the work. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ktlynch - It's great to see your work building up this article. It's good stuff. Congrats. Spanglej (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Spanglej, it's much appreciated though you are too kind. I'll take that as a volunteer for doing the citation templates. ;) --Ktlynch (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see the bit about placing refs before or after punct. Not sure all of my changes follow your pattern. Will look again. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's easy enough to fix. Someoneelse pointed it out above, it's not complusory but consistency is required. I think it looks nicer after, but that's just my eye. Just something to keep in mind as you edit. Great job overall so far though, keep it up. --Ktlynch (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A clarification, as I think my comment above may not have been clear: citations must always come after punctuation; after a comma, period, semi-colon, etc., with no space between "word." and <ref>. This is per the Manual of Style, so it is in fact compulsory. Rather, it is formatting that needs to be consistent, as there is no one way to configure a citation, but whatever is chosen, it must be used throughout the article. Ref 64 ("Ellman (1988) p 429") is not consistent with ref 72 ("Ellman (1988) Pg. 465"), for example. Hopefully this makes sense now. María (habla conmigo) 14:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Maria. I think we were going with after punctuation anyway. You also offered to help with some citations - and I'm not trying to pass off nasty work, but there are a few direct quoatations etc in the article that I'd like to keep which are uncited. I'm going to work on them the next few days; for those that I cannot source due to my limited resources at the moment, I might ask you to lend a hand? Gracias, --Ktlynch (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Subjectivity

I sense a great deal of subordination and subjectivity in the introduction. "He dies a broken and penniless man". "He was only 46 years old". I'm not saying wikipedia is a reliable source - it's not - I'm just saying I've been fed wikipedian policy since my first day here, and even though the policy and the articles contradict themselves in a billion ways, try at least to keep an article about the likes of Oscar Wilde presentable and less biased. He doesn't want wikipedia's pity. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds tragic because it, err, was - not in Wikipedia's estimation but objectively. The lead section is supposed to be a summary, so naturally when such events are compressed they sound more dramatic. "Penniless" = "he had no money" this is not hyperbole, he was poor when he died. "broken" = this is possibly the most subjective term, but it is very clear that Wilde's imprisonment "broke" him emotionally and physically. I.e. his health was very poor; he had neurosis from the prison regime (one account has Wilde obessively arranging objects on his desk into angular patterns); he was unable to maintain or develop friendships after prison due to his need for money and sense of shame, disgrace, and embarassment; and most importantly for a professional writer - he couldn't write any more work. All this is in the article (I think?), so, I hope, it's not a far-fetched description. "...only 46 years old." = that's not a normal age to die, even in the 19th century. Therefore it's hardly "unpresentable" nor " more biased". Though it was inserted for rhetorical affect, it is not NPOV nor in breach of any other policy. The sentence would work equally well without the word "only" though, I believe previous changes to it were rejected as diminishing the quality. If you prefer, "He died in Paris at 46 years old.", works equally well. His age at death is, however, notable.

Wilde can't want WP's pity, he is dead after all, nor does he need it, but if one is concerned about his legacy, the sections that deal with that "aestheticism and philosophy" and "works" are in need of some cited, critical opinion. The purpose of a lead section is to introduce and summarise the article, and invite the reader to continue down the page. It inevitably cannot capture all the nuances of the whole article, nevertheless nothing here was inaccurate. --Ktlynch (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I too hope Ktlynch is getting some sleep. And too would flag that when reading biographies I notice I tend to write in the biographical tone, which is quite close in. It is, perhaps, a peril of writing biog articles. I would favour critical distance where possible, though without desiccating the writing. "Impoverished, he died in Paris at 46 years old..." lends more confidence to me than "he tragically died, broken and penniless, at only 46 years old...". I guess we're aiming for the "encyclopaedic tone". And yes, Ktlynch, I hope to soon get to the citations. Best wishes. Sweet dreams. Spanglej (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm about to nod off, (perhaps I've been living a Wildean lifestyle, mixing hetic social engagements with industrious literary work). I only mention this because of the subleties here, but the article didn't use the adverb "tragically" that you presumed it is possibly because of the true tragedy of the story, or the quality prose... A good article should convey that without saying it. (But not in a POV way ;) --Ktlynch (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Exactly my point; Wilde is dead and wouldn't want nor need wikipedia's pity if he were 200 years old and alive. I've been getting a lot of shit from editors because of my clashes with wikipedian policy, so I thought I should address their intentions to this article for a change, since I admire Oscar Wilde and wouldn't want the introduction to look like a blog entry (I'm exaggerating). I'm by no means an expert, so I trust in everything you say; I just thought that what I read was filled with unnecessary rhetorical effect that diminished the article's credibility. No biggie, I dig the article. Revan ltrl (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Revan, sorry if I sounded defensive. Feel free to go through the rest of the article.--Ktlynch (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Question for those that are now working on this page

First let me compliment all of the work that is being done to improve this article by all involved. I am wondering when Ktlynch is getting any sleep as he seems to be working on this page 24/7. I do have one question though. Let me start by saying that I know that the subject of Wilde's nationality always causes strife (just check back into the archives on this talk page) so I apologize upfront for dredging up the same. First a little background. Around three years ago we had settled on a compromise consensus that Wilde was Irish but that he was from an Anglo-Irish family. Other people from this time - Bram Stoker for one - fit into this description. I notice that this has disappeared from the early life section. I would suggest that we consider putting it back in, though I am not going to insist on it. Here is my reasoning. In all my readings of Wilde's parents the firm nationalism of his mother, Jane, is always mentioned. Also mentioned is that fact that his father, William, was just as firmly in the opposite camp. This must have made for some lively family discussions and, I feel, that Oscar was influenced by both attitudes. If we are not going to use the "A-I" term I feel that we should at least mention his fathers attitude since we make a point of his mothers. Once again kudos to all for their efforts on this page and keep up the good work. MarnetteD | Talk 22:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Lady Wilde distuinguished herself by her contributions to and association with Irish nationalism, in her own lifetime. Sir William by his leadership in medicine and historical research on Ireland, those are salient facts. There's debate/divide to try to balance out. Also the term "Anglo-Irish" has many meanings, the most understood of which is Irishmen who write in the English language. Which there is no convenient way to express in English, compared to French for example ..."écrivain marocain d'expression francaise." --Ktlynch (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Anglo-Irish article includes Oscar Wilde as A-I in the sociological sense of being a member of the anglicised Irish professional class. His family were Anglican protestant professionals. This was the sense in which it was originally used in this article. Dabbler (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I did some archeology and it was lost about two years ago. I think some of the confusion of the term is starting to show here. Firstly, you've misused the ang- prefix. Anglican means the Anglican communion, while anglicised means "more english". The article already clearly describes Sir William's life, I think more is needed on the intellectual circle he moved in Dulbin at the time. Secondly, wikipedia cannot cite itself, and even if it could that article is in very poor condition, of limited or no value to anybody. -Marnette's point about dinner table discussion, where did that come from? I understood that they married at the height of her fame as a nationalist.--Ktlynch (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the difference between Anglican (Church of Ireland) and anglicised (adopting the usages and customs of the English). However, in the professional upper middle classes of Ireland of the late Victorian times, the one often led to the other. Until the anti-Catholic laws were repealed, only Anglicans could be educated and take up the professions (law, medicine etc.) and they were often educated at Trinity College, Dublin or the English universities, like Wilde, which gave them a very English education. They also often adopted English ways to differentiate themselves from the Catholic population. In my view, the problem with the Anglo-Irish article is that the term is used in a number of different ways and people really can't seem to grasp that it has more than one meaning. Dabbler (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Djleslie (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Really minor, but this sentence doesn't make sense: Some elements disdained the aesthetes, but their languishing attitudes and showy costumes became a recognised pose.[21] Elements of what?

34 Tite street

Any reason why number 16 shouldn't be changed to 34? It's 34 in the picture that adorns the page and numerous external WP:RSs. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong, and Ktlynch will be able to correct me, but I am pretty sure that the address was 16 Tite St when the Wilde's lived there and it was changed to 34 during some reorganization of house numbers in the 20th Cent. If this is the case we should note the discrepancy, at least in a footnote, if I am wrong then we should change it per Old Moonraker's request. MarnetteD | Talk 13:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw my suggestion in favor of that from MarnetteD: perhaps it could go as an explanatory note in the picture caption, now showing so obviously "34". I have a ref. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wilde vs Whistler

Seems there should be some detail about how Wilde took notes from James Abbott McNeill Whistler, another aesthete 20 years his senior. In 1916's Oscar Wilde: his life and confessions, sensational journalist Frank Harris makes it plain that he thinks Whistler is the most important personal influence in the "moulding of Oscar Wilde's talent". In 1888, Whistler's "Ten O'Clock Lecture" was praised by Wilde, but Whistler took offense at the wording. In the article, there should be a bit about this and the subsequent public jibes taken between the men. In 1890, a series of exchanges were published in Truth, with Whistler famously calling Wilde "that arch-imposter and pest of the period—the all-pervading plagiarist!" Wilde's The Critic as Artist is supposed to be, among other things, a response to Whistler's accusation of plagiarism (The Cambridge companion to Oscar Wilde, edited by Peter Raby.) Another oft-quoted exchange has Whistler delivering a witty quip to another person, following which Wilde says "I wish I had said that." Whistler retorts "You will, Oscar, you will." (Raby, ed.) Whistler depicted a clearly Wilde-like dandy in a book, and Wilde returned the disfavor in Dorian Gray, making the artist have some of Whistler's characteristics. These famous bits give some indication of the nature of the relationship between the men, but more text should be added to give historic context. When did they meet? How often did they come into contact? What made them take swipes at each other? At present, there is absolutely no mention of Whistler in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that this talk page entry of mine has no bearing on the concurrent GA review. It would bear on any future review at WP:FAC, though. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Baudelaire

No mention is made of the French critic Charles Baudelaire, a man judged as very important to Wilde's aestheticism in The Cambridge companion to Oscar Wilde, edited by Peter Raby. One of the contributors to this book sets Baudelaire at the same level of importance as Ruskin, Pater and Whistler, but the article only mentions Ruskin and Pater. Another interesting influence, unmentioned, is Théophile Gautier. Wilde patterned his poem "Symphony in Yellow" after Gautier's Symphonie en blanc majeur. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Which essay was that? I would have thought Baudelaire's poetry was more influential than any criticism. Ruskin and Pater are mentioned as majar formative influences, since they tutored him at university. Wilde read voraciously, and was very well read in French literature. Any essay can always highlight the influence of one particular writer. That's not a no, but i would think Whistler would merit a mention before Baudelaire, as much as I love Les fleurs du mal. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Yes, Whistler certainly merits higher notice in most critical analyses of Wilde's influences. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oscance festival

Is this relevant or is it, taken with the external link to its promoters, WP:SOAP? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I cut it, there's lots of events, statues etc. about Wilde, the article's long enough and has to excise much already to stay within reasonable length.--Ktlynch (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Happy Prince

Saw this up at GA, think its a great article and hope it passes. Just one thing missing, his outstanding and very popular Happy Prince should be mentioned in the article and maybe even in the lede, for some its a better work evan than Dorian or Earnest. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Huxtable, I have a good article on Wilde's children's fictions so will try to incorporate it into the article soon. Critics usually consider Wilde's children's work to rank highly within that genre and illustrate some of his themes well. The Happy Prince is already mentioned in the Selected works section, but inevitably a biography of this length must excise some material. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Erosion of GA level

In this edit, a new contributor adds to the article, expanding on Wilde's The Soul of Man Under Socialism. This edit introduced spelling, grammar, punctuation, manual of style and reference format problems, some of which are still in the article. An analysis of the The Soul of Man Under Socialism is supported only by a cite to the work itself, not to a reliable, verifiable analysis. If new or drive-by editors are not corrected, the article will again fade from its hard-won GA status. Binksternet (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Expect influx of editing - frontpage of Google

Document changes here. - Pushkin

Libertarian socialism and Wilde

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

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

Bolting Wilde into political categories is difficult, it was not his primary or even secondary occupation nor did he ever firm solid views. The article has seen persistent attempts in recent months to adopt him as a poster boy for socialism or anarachism, or some combination of these. New material and views on Wilde is of course welcome, and the article remains imperfect but often these edits have introduced errors or unsourced material: here the GA reviewer protests and [[2]] the same claim is entered, unreferenced, again introducing errors and changing the meaning of the lead.

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

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

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

Uncyclopedia

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

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

Template:Sic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

In Our Time

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

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

Strange effect

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

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

Gilsey House

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

children

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

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

Clarification

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

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

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

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

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

John Gray & (briefly) Robbie Ross

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

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

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

Catholicism and Douglas in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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