Talk:Oscar Wilde/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Revisionist gatekeepers

I'm really getting annoyed with the revisionist gatekeepers who are constantly deleting every reference to Wilde's politics and religion. His socialist politics and Christian faith are important aspects of his life and should not be whitewashed by people with an agenda. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources to verify that Wilde was a socialist/anarchist and a Christian. Read up and stop deleting. https://hollowverse.com/oscar-wilde/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN. It is up to you to provide sourced info when making any edits to the article. No one is whitewashing anything. The sources must be reliable as well. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-read the above message. All info is sourced. Vandals keep deleting it. It's probably homophobic trolls who don't believe someone can be LGBT and Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs)

Oh please, this has nothing to do with "homophobic trolls". The problem is the source you cited is not reliable. Please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and stop making personal attacks on other editors. Railfan23 (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The sources were reliable. There's no excuse for deleting. Even the categories are being being deleted. STOP!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

He's in the category of LGBT Anglicans, but someone keeps deleting other categories. It's widely sourced throughout the whole article that he was Anglican. And it's known that he was a socialist. Read The Soul of Man Under Socialism. It's an essay by Oscar Wilde himself! His own words aren't a good enough source for you? This is absolutely ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs) `

The category you tried to add is Category:Christian anarchists. Anarchism is not the same a socialism. Your one source so far is a blog that is clearly not reliable per WP:RS - have you read that? Let's assume you really want Category:Christian socialists. While it is true that Wilde was both a Christian and a Socialist, being these two things independently is not the same as being a Christian socialist. You can't just synthesises these independent facts and conclude he's a Christian Socialist - that is original research. You need a specific, reliable source that says he was a Christian socialist. And you haven't provided that yet. Note that I have no opinion whether or not he should be in Category:Christian socialists, but you do need to have a sourced statement in the article to support adding that category. Railfan23 (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, read The Soul of Man under Socialism by Oscar Wilde himself. A Christian socialist is someone who is both a Christian and a socialist. Period. Just like LGBT Anglican is someone who is both LGBT and Anglican. The two independent things don't change meanings when you put them together. An Irish novelist is someone who is both Irish and a novelist. If he was Australian and a novelist, he'd be an Australian novelist. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'll accept a compromise of putting him the the Category:Christian socialists category instead of his specific sect of socialism which is understood to be anarchism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Just because Wilde wrote about socialism does not mean he was a socialist. Per WP:CATVER a category must have sourced info in the article to be listed there. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. MarnetteD|Talk 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the source and the whole discussion before offering your contribution. It's already established that he was a socialist and a Christian. Nobody's disputing that. He's already in the Irish socialists category. The conflict was about whether "Christian socialist" means something other than being a Christian and a socialist. It does not. I will consider the status of this conflict resolved as long as the aforementioned compromise has been ratified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the text on Category:Christian socialists which says: "This category is for followers of the Christian socialism movement, not for all socialists who are Christian.". also take a look at the article on Christian socialism. The term "Christian socialist" does not mean anyone who is both a Christian and a socialist. It has a specific meaning. Wilde might be a Christian socialist. If he is, you'll be able to find a reliable, specific source that you can cite to that effect. Add that to the article, and no-one will object to you adding the category. Until then, you can't. Railfan23 (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Then would there be any objection to the category Category:Irish Christian socialists? There's no hidden definition that someone could try to make up there. It's a combination of three things every Oscar Wilde scholar knows are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs)

Look at the parent categories: it's a combination of two things—and one of them is Christian socialist. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, there should be no objections to Category:Anglican socialists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs)

Did you read that category? It says "This category is for Anglicans in the Christian socialist tradition.". Again, maybe Wilde is a Christian socialist? If so, please find and cite the source that says he is. Otherwise, no, you can't just decide he's one and put him in that category. Railfan23 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. We all agree Wilde was Anglican, Christian, Socialist, and Irish. The only dispute seems to be whether he was an anarchist or not. I suggest reading his own words instead of relying on what someone said on a Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs)

Next you're going to say he shouldn't be in the Irish playwrights category or the Irish Christians category because even though we all agree he was those things we have to go by some unknown Wikipedia editor's opinion instead of the facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs) `

No-one is suggesting either of those things. Stop making up strawman arguments. Every editor above has asked you to provide reliable sources to support the ever-changing set of categories you want to add. You haven't bothered to do that once, but have instead insisted that your own opinion should decide what goes in the article. So, yes, I agree with you, we should not put "an unknown Wikipedia editor's opinion instead of the facts". Since you're the only one doing that, please stop. Railfan23 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well said Railfan23. IP Wikipedia operates under various policies and guidelines. The relevant ones have been linked to more than once in this thread. If you can't follow them you will have a difficult time editing here. You are perfectly free to post your opinions on facebook or a blog. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We'll see if your "straw man" theory is true then. We'll add him to the Irish playwrights and Irish Christians categories and make sure they don't get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs)

Your addition of Category:Irish Christians has already been reverted once by yet another editor, because you have failed to read and understand the simple instructions on that category's page. You are well past the point of this being disruptive editing to prove a point. I suspect you will be blocked from editing if you continue on, against the very clear consensus from multiple editors, expressed in the comments above. Just so you know. Railfan23 (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly as I thought. You accused me of a "straw man" argument, but I turned out to be correct. Someone deleted the category Irish Christians and said no consensus. Has anyone here actually read a word Oscar Wilde has written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs)

You are unable to follow consensus. You are disrupting the article to prove a point. And you are involved in an edit war. Each of these merits a block. Please stop. Railfan23 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

We established that he was an Anglican. How is this not "consensus" Is this person who keeps deleting things saying he's not Irish? This is the worst example of bad Wikipedia editing I've ever seen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs)

No-one is saying he's not Irish. No-one. Railfan23 (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You agreed that he was Anglican and Irish. What point are you trying to make with this? Seriously. Stop accusing me of doing the exact same thing you're doing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs)

Then tell me why it was deleted? No one is saying he's not Irish and no-one is saying he's not Christian, yet Irish Christians was deleted. What is going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.206.153 (talk • contribs)

Read the category definition "Members of Christian churches, in Ireland, either past or present, for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic" (emphasis added since you clearly missed this the last time you read it). Railfan23 (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sexuality label

It's my impression that there's quite a debate among Wilde scholars and LGBT history scholars about whether Wilde could be categorized as gay or bisexual, but the article labels him as the latter. I would not have an issue with it if not for the fact that the article makes no mention of his specific sexuality or the discussion around it; in fact, the word "bisexual" doesn't appear anywhere else in the article. I was surprised not to find a discussion about the specific label here (beyond a somewhat non-conclusive one way back in the first archives page), so maybe we should have it? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde's Anglo-Irishness

@Bastun: Actually, I don't see how adding a well-known fact was particularly 'bold'. I was not using Wikipedia as a source--common knowledge doesn't need a source. That Wilde was Anglo-Irish is a matter of fact, not one for debate--unless you think that the paragraph literally in the lede that states he was born to Anglo-Irish parents is false? If Wilde, born in Ireland to a family of English descent and living and working in England, can't be considered Anglo-Irish, then no one can, which I suspect might be the agenda at play here. I'm absolutely baffled that this seems to be a point of contention for you. I can only conclude that you're totally unfamiliar with Wilde and his life. What evidence do you have that he was not Anglo-Irish? St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD - bold, revert, discuss - is a commonly accepted way of working on Wikipedia, not an insult. Please drop the personal attacks. I'll not try proving a negative, thanks all the same. Wilde's background has been discussed previously here - see the Archives. The consensus version is "Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde was an Irish poet and playwright." Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I was not making personal attacks and apologise if it came off that way. I can't find any consensus on Wilde's background in the archives going back to 2015; if anything, it seems to be quite contested, with many people rightly pointing that he was Anglo-Irish and should be described as such. Listing him as 'Irish' is sheer historical revisionism (and ironically would probably have made Wilde furious). And I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you cite a source for your rejection of what is universally (in all scholarship on Wilde that I have ever encountered) an accepted fact--except apparently by you. Let's put it another way. Can you prove Wilde was Irish? --St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, here... you may just be reading the wrong books! His ma was Speranza, like! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Oscar wasn't his mother. And he was Anglo-Irish, as everybody knows. And James Joyce was a member of my family and I don't greatly care what Wikiwarriors think. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Bisexual redux

There are reliable sources that label him bisexual, eg[1][2] and[3]. I see that not all agree, but that's irrelevant surely as our NPOV policy says that we must show all significant points of view. @MarnetteD: what do you think? Of course, until it's in the article, we shouldn't have the categories. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In a 2008 interview for The Advocate, Wilde's grandson, Merlin Holland, said this about his sexual orientation: "Bisexual implies that throughout his life he indulged in both one and the other. I would say that he was probably heterosexual up to a certain point in his life, and then from that moment onward he became homosexual. I think the term bisexual is probably wrong. I think he was initially heterosexual, and then realized that he’s been channeled down the wrong path too long. One sees, one almost feels, in what he writes and in his letters, that there is a sense of his relief at a certain point in his life that he has discovered his true sexuality....He’s a man who discovered his true nature and then made no bones about it and indulged in his homosexuality completely, which is obviously what got him put into prison. If it was a black-and-white story of Oscar just being homosexual from the year one and concealing it and finally coming to terms with it, it would make a much less interesting story." (Charpentier, Julia Ann (June 19, 2008). "After the Fall". The Advocate.)
It is well known that many (and probably most) homosexuals engage in heterosexual behavior and experiment with both sexes before finally coming out to our own selves as gay or lesbian.
I also suggest the following as an interesting read (and mentions Wilde): Landesman, Cosmo (4 January 2014). "It's a stupid lie to say we're all bisexual". The Spectator.. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that word "label". I maintain that labels of sexual preference are arbitrary, unnecessary, and unencyclopedic. Encyclopedias, and literature, generally, have no business assigning persons to such artificial categories (even if said persons describe themselves as belonging to a particular category). We should mention what they say about the subject themselves, if they say anything at all, but we should not state outright that they belong to any particular category; categories don't begin to describe reality, and never will—they can't.

After all, anyone can decide tomorrow that he fits a different category, and declare that he renounces the "old" identity, and embraces a new one, declaring that this was his true nature all along.

Encyclopedias, especially, should describe only the known sexual practices or particular experiences of any person, according to reliable sources, not whether any person is gay, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, etc. Carlstak (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It's tricky, but easier for someone long dead. We need to say that there has been a debate over whether he was bisexual. Categories are for navigation, not to describe reality, and if the article says there was a debate a category may be a good idea. The issue I guess though is "defining", and although his homosexuality is a defining trait of Wilde, bisexuality? I'm just raising the issue of first, inclusion of the debate, after that people can decide about categories. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping DW and to PS and C for adding to the conversation. I know I have a difficult time using contemporary descriptions for eras where the term did not exist. There is a scene in Gross Indecency: The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde that goes into this, though it isn't about bisexuality. I agreed with Merlin Holland's thoughts at the time I read them. I also consider that Wilde's description of how unsatisfying having sex with a women later in life was a factor in forming my opinion. Perhaps my thoughts that bisexuals enjoy sleeping with both sexes may be too narrow and I apologize to any bis who read this if it is. I agree that mentioning the debate over this in the body of the article is a possibility. OTOH I think WP:CATDEF makes adding the category more problematic. If anyone feels a WP:RFC is needed to get more input please feel free to start one. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo

To this articles watchers. As much as I appreciate Sarony's series of photos of Wilde they come from one specific part of his life. The bio's I've read mention that he took on the look as part of his lectures on aestheticism and that he abandoned it in the years after his return to England. Both before and after the early 1880's his contemporaries would have seen him like this. IMO the pic in the infobox should be more representative of his entire life so I have moved the Sarony one to the section about his tour of America (where it was taken) and restored the one from 1889. If there winds up being a WP:CONSENSUS against this then fine but I would suggest including the 1889 photo in the article somewhere. MarnetteD|Talk 20:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

To repeat my edit summary comment, I’m perplexed why the most familiar image of Wilde is not the lead image in this bio. The floppy haired look is the most identifiable image of Wilde. While not familiar with the rules on this website, I looked up what is regarded as being appropriate for the lead image. It states, “the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see.” Surely the most familiar image is precisely what readers expect to see? This same look, as I previously stated, that appears in his statue in Dublin, his big screen biopic, and the vast majority of Google images. There are many other similar examples I could bring up (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica) but that would labour the point. I see no justification for a less familiar look appearing as the lead image on here. Crescent Rosie (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(I have taken the liberty of merging the last two talk page sections, as they relate to the same issue). I agree with Crescent Rosie - the "floppy-haired" 1882 image is by far the most recognisable and commonly depicted one. I pass Oscar's statue most days (when there's no lockdown), which also means passing the lightbox with his image, painted by Sarah Bracken, right outside Merrion Square, and that is the image we most associate with him. No objection whatsoever to including the 1889 image elsewhere in the article, but the first/most prominent one encountered should be the 1882 image. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:RS that it is the most identifiable or familiar image of Wilde or that it is "what readers expect to see" or that it is "by far" the most commonly depicted one. Otherwise your statements boil down to WP:ILIKEIT. The Sarony pics are not the "vast majority" of Google images. There have been several films of Wilde's life so which one are you referring to. The two from 1960 Oscar Wilde and The Trials of Oscar Wilde both show him looking much more like the 1989 photo. Stephen's Fry's Wilde has him with long hair on his trip to America and with shorter hair later on. The Happy Prince has him with shorter hair. By all means start a WP:RFC if you wish but you might wait for more editors to respond in this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 21:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Start an RFC on which image to use??! Ain't nobody has time for that... this isn't the Donald's article. Why are you discussing films? We're talking about an article subject. But a google straw poll shows a roughly 17:7:2 ration of "floppy hair" to "short-ish" hair to "I'm going to impersonate the Fourth Doctor if that's ok with you." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Google straw polls are fan votes not a WP:RS. Films are being discussed as CR mentioned "his big screen biopic." MarnetteD|Talk 23:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Fan votes"? No, they're not "fan votes", they're a representative sample of the images returned, from all available sources, when one does a google image search for the term "Oscar Wilde". Reverting per MOS:LEADIMAGE as this is the image most people would reasonably associate with Wilde, and per WP:CONSENSUS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A} Straw polls at Google have nothing to do with WP:CONSENSUS here. B) Sarony took over twenty-five (there is some dispute over the exact number) photos of Wilde so your straw poll is about the full set of those photos, thus the nember is skewed and gives no indication that this one photo is somehow more known than any of the others in that set. C) You have still provided zero sources about what "most people" expect to see. Once again he sported this look for a brief period of his life so it is WP:UNDUE to state that it is more representative of the man. Start an WP:RFC if you wish. MarnetteD|Talk 16:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I will not "start an RFC", because this isn't the Donald's article where that tactic has been imposed to delay "controversial" changes happening for 30 or more days. We're talking about the lead image of a biography article, so let's not blow things out of proportion. WP:BRD is absolutely fine for this. We're at the "discuss" stage, it appears, because you don't appear to be standing by your comment above - "If there winds up being a WP:CONSENSUS against this then fine but I would suggest including the 1889 photo in the article somewhere." 2:1 and only three people is a narrow consensus, granted. I would be happy with almost any of the approximately 25 iconic Sarony images, btw, over any of the circa-1889 short-haired ones, so the ratio mentioned is absolutely valid. But let's look at image use on the article:

• The first image added to the lede was in August 2002. It's one of the Sarony 1882 images.
• That image got replaced, with the addition of an unidentifable picture in October 2004 (the history shows a random user added this, here, but that image is dated to 2009. Presumably the actual Wilde image used on the article has since been deleted and whatever now resides at Oscar.jpg was not what you and I missed while editing the article for over 4 years!)
• The replacement image was another Sarony photo added in May 2008.
• That image was replaced with a Commons "valued image", more sepia tinted, in Februiary 2010, colour corrected in March.
• Every image since then - so an unbroken period from at least 2008 until July 2019 - has used one or other of the iconic Sarony images.

That would certainly imply, at the very least, a passive consensus that one or other of the Sarony images should be the prime image, no? Then there's policy? We have MOS:LEADIMAGE:

• "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." So, the most recognisable image, would you say? The photos that inspired his Dublin statue? Further:
• "The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there." - so avoid, say, the way he looked at one particular time in his life where the image(s) are less well known, and instead use the most well-known images. (No, I won't produce a WP:RS to "prove" that the Sarony images are more well known, so please don't ask.)
• WP:UNDUE does not apply. And I am surprised you cite that as an applicable policy in this case.
• At the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. examples of MOS:LEADIMAGE being applied: Neil Armstrong shows Neil the astronaut in the late '60s, not the elderly retired astronaut that he was for the last 20-something years of his life. Elvis Presley uses an image from the Jailhouse Rock publicity in 1957s, not fat Vegas Elvis from the 70s. Rosa Parks uses an image from her days campaigning for civil rights in the 60s, not any of the multitude of images from her continued work into the 1990s. The most well known, iconic images. That's what was used here, and should use here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand WP:RFC. It doesn't delay things in fact it does the opposite as it sets a finite time for discussion and for closure by an uninvolved editor. It only takes but a minute or two to start. Amount of time of something being in an article is not implied consensus and is sophistry in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit at any point in time. Along with that since WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE there is no way to know the new one unless you run an RFD. You wont provide reliably sourced info regarding the various images why? Because you can't or you don't want to do the research. Thus, you have no evidence that the current pic is not recognizable to readers and that basically shows that your statements are WP:ILIKEIT . Yes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does apply. Especially since the articles that you link to (with the slight possibility of Elvis) are not pics of when they took on a certain look as part of tour to promote a movement and one they abandoned soon after. MarnetteD|Talk 00:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree w/MarnetteD‘s assessment, I think the 1882 image should be in the article but not the main one as it’s not as accurate to represent his entire life. Happy to come back for an RFC as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD, it's not clear, to me at least, why you are defending your change of the long-standing image of Wilde in the lede so vigorously. It may be a matter of taste, but I am not persuaded by your arguments. The long-haired foppish look affected by the man on his American tour might have been a minor interlude in the course of his career, but it is nonetheless the look most familiar to people who have only a passing familiarity with Wilde's story, and they are and will be the majority of readers of this article. As far as I am concerned, though, the cut of his lips tells more about him than the length of his hair anyway—they wrote his history. "I do not like his lips, they are quite like the lips of a goldfish.";-)

1) Please learn to sign you posts. 2) I did not put the 1889 pic in the infobox I only restored it after the recent removal. 3) Again no evidence that the 1882 pic is the "look most familiar to people" and, again, it is one of 27+ so evidence should be provided that is the more familiar than any of the others no matter whether a readers knowledge of Wilde is passing or in depth. Without empirical evidence those are still WP:ILIKEIT statements 4) Your take on his lips is an interesting point and I remember reading it before. Just to note they are apparent in both pics. 5) Longevity of an item in any article is not a reason to object to change. But along those lines did readers over the last nine months leave the article saying "I wonder who that was a picture of in the infobox?" I haven't read that anywhere at any rate. 6) I can't see that my posts are any more or less vehement than those by others commenting on this thread so I'm not sure why you felt the need to single one editor out. I am stating my case and they are stating theirs and that is pretty much par for the course here at the 'pedia. I will close again by recommending the RFC. I have always abided by their conclusions no matter which side of the discussion I was on. MarnetteD|Talk 03:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't condescend to me, MarnetteD, with such statements as "Please learn to sign you posts".[sic] I know very well to sign my posts, and simply forgot; no need for snide retorts. I have a business to run and was in a hurry before I left this morning. I do think it's rather odd that you're putting so much energy into defending your changes, and that you are overreacting to a lighthearted, satirical comment. I even used a winky-face, so please lighten up. Carlstak (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Besides, your whole case itself reduces to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I said nothing about how vehement your comments are, so it's bizarre that you read that into it. I singled you out to respond to because you started this section with a statement addressed to "this articles [sic] watchers". I am a watcher of this article, so I responded to you. Carlstak (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S And by the way, you do not have consensus for your change of the infobox image. Carlstak (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

1) Saying please is not snide. 2) Once again you missed the fact that I did not change the picture. I restored one that someone else placed there. 3) So you said "vigorous" rather than "vehement" - potato/potahto and I have been no more or less vigorous than others commenting on this page. 4} As has been mentioned more than once please feel free to start an RFC to get a new consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 02:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I've think you've gone off the deep end here. Numbered points? Lighten up. Carlstak (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

1) Don't bite the newbies. (Crescent Rosie, you can sign your posts by typing four tilde sysmbols. If you forget, a bot will usually come along after and sign for you). 2) Again, any one of the circa 25 iconic Sarony images would be better than the 1889 image. 3) Hmm, I wonder what scholarly articles or RS exist to show that one likeness of a person is more familiar or recognisable than another? That's not what the WP:RS policy is for, as you well know. The images used as publicity stand a really good chance of being the ones most recognisable to people. For perfectly obvious reasons. Those images resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court case; managed to inspire a sculpture in his native city (that merits its own article, no less; the Sarah Bracken artwork; the cover photos of six out of nine biographies on the first page of a Google search for just biographies; the covers of seven out of nine biogrpahies listed on Amazon's first page of results. Seriously, Marnette, WP:SKYISBLUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight Crescent Rosie signed their post, Carlstak forgot. MarnetteD|Talk 14:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Not getting all of my facts straight, omg - sincere apologies for my mistake! In the absence of a rebuttal to any of the substantive points and with no consensus for restoration of the 1889 image, I'll revert to the Sarony image. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Again - in the absence of a rebuttal and no consensus for restoration of the '89 image, restoring the Sarony image is perfectly reasonable. Especially if you're not going to engage on Talk. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk has been engaged in. Just read the above. Per WP:VOTE no consensus has, as yet, been reached here. Start the WP:RFC any time you wish. MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No. I'm participating in the WP:BRD process. A long-established method in perfectly good standing and used throughout WP. It's perfectly adequate for determining what photo can be used in an article lead or infobox. Consensus is not a vote - no, it isn't. Cogent argument is. We have two people saying "the image should represent the majority of his life" and three others we should follow MOS:LEADIMAGE. In addition you have argued that there is no guarantee that images that have inspired significant works of art and that were commissioned precisely for the purposes of publicity are more well known than other images, even when it's been demonstrated that the Sarony images are far more prevalent. Frankly, that's not logical, and can be discounted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I'd seriously suggest you read WP:RFC again. It's clearly designed as one of the last resorts for resolving an issue, not the first option. See WP:RFCBEFORE, specifically: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Granted, this may not be the norm on certain American BLPs, but it seems to work well for the rest of WP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be seriously disappointed if a lack of further engagement or rebuttal here was followed by yet another "this isn't a vote, start an RfC" if I restore the Sarony image. Can I assume that won't happen? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Given lack of response in over 50 hours, I'm going to assume no further objections, so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I object, especially to this protracted conversation where reasonable people simply disagree. Either start the RfC or leave it be. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

By all means, set out the grounds that you're objecting on. Current consensus seems to be 3:2 in favour of a Sarony image, and use of a Sarony image would be in full accord with MOS:LEADIMAGE. In the absence of any reasoned objection, it amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not grounds for reverting. I have set out above why an RFC is unnecessary. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on lead image (April 2020)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus was to use the Sarony photo as the lead. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Since prior discussion has resulted in edit-warring and no consensus it seems obvious that the suggestion of an RfC to get more eyes on the situation is called for:

What is the best option for the lead image (See MOS:LEADIMAGE)? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

1882 photo by Sarony

1882 photo by Sarony

• Support Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." (my emphasis). A Sarony photo has been used as the lead image since the first image was added to the article in 2002, until last summer, for good reason - it's the most common and most recognisable image of Wilde. (See, e.g., this image search on Google (I used incognito windows, fwiw), this one for paintings of Wilde, the cover photos of six out of nine biographies on the first page of a Google search for just biographies; the covers of seven out of nine biographies listed on Amazon's first page of results.) Oh, let's not forget the major sculpture in his native city, and a U.S. Supreme Court case resulting from Sarony's photos.

The argument that Wilde was "playing a role" in the Sarony images is bizarre and uncited, as is the assertion that publicity photos shouldn't be used. Yes, the Sarony were publicity photos for a tour. That has no bearing on whether they should be used or not, apart from the obvious fact that publicity photos are more likely to be known - an argument in favour of using one in the lead. The argument that "he didn't look like that for most of his life" is similarly bizarre and forms no part of the MOS:LEADIMAGE guidance. What we do know is Wilde wore his hair long for at least one-third of his adult life, a sizeable chunk. But that aside, examples of MOS:LEADIMAGE being applied properly abound: Neil Armstrong shows Neil the astronaut in the late '60s (a publicity photo!), not the elderly retired astronaut that he was for the last 20-something years of his life. Elvis Presley uses an image from the Jailhouse Rock publicity in 1957s, not fat Vegas Elvis from the 70s. Rosa Parks uses an image from her days campaigning for civil rights in the 60s, not any of the multitude of images from her continued work into the 1990s. Barack Obama uses a 2012 publicity image, from one of his first years in office, rather than his current grey-haired visage. In other words, the most well known, iconic images are used. That's what was used here, and what should be used here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - This is the photo I would expect to see in the lead. When I think of Oscar Wilde, this is by far the photo I associate with him, and in my opinion the most identifiable image of him. And quite frankly, it's more visually appealing in comparison to the dour and droopy-eyed photo from 1889.- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - For the reasons eloquently articulated above. :^)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Ellmann's Oscar Wilde features the long-haired Wilde on its cover. A long-haired Wilde is the illustration in Britannica. Though classic caricatures are effectively split, the more iconic images feature long hair. A Google Image search seems to return more long-haired images than short-haired (and many of the long-haired images are the proposed Sarony, supporting the suggestion that it is among the most common depictions). And, even if we follow the line that he was "playing up a character" in the Sarony photos, that "character" became interchangeable with his public identity—and, crucially, his reception since. Illustrations and caricatures of his trial depict him—though portlier—as long-haired; the most infamous moment of his life is associated with long hair. The public perception then and now, both as a literary figure and a queer icon, is more closely tied to long hair than short hair. One could frame it as reductive or too temporally limited to hold up this image, and the persona attached to it, as a summation of Wilde—but it is certainly representative of the Wilde commonly known. Moreover, the precedent of someone having changed the image to the current one is not good precedent (and, given the recency of the change away from a Sarony (see timeline in initial discussion), and the seeming lack of discussion when it was made, a Sarony has greater precedent). anthologetes ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per comments above. In response to Bastun, it's hardly "bizarre" to say that Wilde was "playing a role"; it's pretty much a mainstream view. For example, David M. Friedman, writes in Wilde in America: Oscar Wilde and the Invention of Modern Celebrity: "...the star of London's dinner-party circuit was inhabiting the character he had come to America to play. [...] His flamboyant style of dress [...] would be his visual signature as he crossed the country." Carlstak (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I don't think it's really relevant whether he was "playing a role", because in other cases where the subject of the article has a flamboyant public persona that contrasts with a more reserved private persona, other articles have no problem using images that reflect the public persona. Compare for example the image in Marylyn Monroe: Monroe was well-known to be very different in private from the image she cultivated in public, and yet the image on the page is an image of her in her public persona. And it's similar for other examples I'm aware of: Bastun has already listed many examples of this. Loki (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's an overall better image. ~ HAL333 20:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - In addition to being a better photo, this photo is the subject of a famous Copyright case that went all the way up to the Supreme Court. The case famously defined the copyright test for photographs (interesting for IP lawyers, not many others; test is rendition, timing, creation of the subject). IMO the photograph is notable in and of itself for having sparked the copyright case, and I think it's just natural to have the Sarony photo used as Wilde's lead photo. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

1889 photo by Picture by W. and D. Downey

1889 photo by W. and D. Downey

• Support To recap my posts above this pic is more representative of Wilde throughout his life. The set of Sarony pics are wonderful images from a persona that he created (for the most part) for his lecture tour of America. The one in question goes perfectly in the America section of the article where I placed it. MarnetteD|Talk 01:01, 27 April 2020‎ (UTC)

• Support As was pointed out previously, the Sarony images don’t really fit “Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic” as they show Wilde as a character he portrayed for publicity. The 1989 image is unsurprising and representative of what he looked like much of his life, and what readers would expect to see. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment — Added images so participants of RfC can see the two photos, they can be removed from talk page when RfC is ended.- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The one at bottom looks to be of slightly better technical quality, but that's a secondary concern to the "personality" issue being discussed so far above. I'm not willing to wade into familiarizing myself with that so I'll refrain from !voting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Oxford, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Could we please get a source for the statement that Wilde wore his hair long (as long as in the Sarony pic?) for one third of his life - that would be between 15 and 16 years. His college pics show short hair and every pic that I've seen in the various biographies don't show long hair after the age of thirty. Curly for a brief period of time yes - long no. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Not that the length of time he wore it long is really in any way relevant, as per my comment above, Ellmann tells us he wore his hair long while at Oxford, so that's 1874 on. I do not, I concede, recall Ellmann providing comparative measurements. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW you made the length of time relevant when you stated "What we do know is Wilde wore his hair long for at least one-third of his adult life, a sizeable chunk." You may want to double check the Ellmann statement as the available pics from his Oxford days [4], [5], [6] do not show long hair. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Closure

Gleeanon409, it's been over a week since the last new contribution. There is a clear consensus now of 8:2 in favour of the Sarony image. Can we close this? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think, and @MarnetteD: correct me if I’m off-base, that we should let it run its course to allow more eyes and a better decision, but the image can go on the article to represent the current consensus. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You both beat me here as I was just thinking about making a post today or tomorrow. I was going to mention that if anyone wants to follow the guidelines at WP:RFCCLOSE, even though it is less than 30 days, I think that would be okay. Also whoever wants to make the edit swapping the pics can do so but I would like to suggest that we ask Crescent Rosie if they would like to perform the edit as this started with them. It might help CR to see how this RFC process works. My thanks to everyone who took part in this RFC. During the course of it I found out about this recent biography which might be of interest to the participants. I mention it not because of the pic on the cover :-) but because it contains info gleaned from sources (letters etc.) that weren't available to previous biographers. Regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m fine with whatever direction you want to take. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Confusion: closed or not?

@Gleeanon409, MarnetteD, and Bastun: It seems like there was clear consensus here; are we just waiting the full 30 days before this is considered "closed"? I.e. it will close on May 26th? It looks like nobody has commented on this discussion since April 27. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• It can be closed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• As I wrote above "that if anyone wants to follow the guidelines at WP:RFCCLOSE, even though it is less than 30 days, I think that would be okay." I'm not sure what part of that statement is confusing. MarnetteD|Talk 22:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will close it per option 2 under WP:RFCCLOSE. I wasn't sure if I could close it seeing as I participated, but it seems like this is fine since the consensus is clear. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article is a whitewash

It's true that Wilde was prosecuted under a law that has since been repealed and that is now regarded as unjust, but the evidence presented at his trial included actions which are illegal under modern laws: sex with minors (statutory rape), and coercing minors to have sex with him (actual rape under any reasonable definition). Some of his victims suffered serious harm, according to the evidence. If tried for these offenses in the 21st century and convicted, he would have been sentenced to a considerably longer imprisonment than two years (though perhaps in more humane conditions). Longitude2 (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Reason for Wilde’s trial and conviction

The intro states that Wilde was tried for “consensual homosexual” activity. But I argue that is incorrect and is misleading. He went to court as a prosecutor against the Marquis of Queensberry for the libel of being called a ‘sodomite’ (not a ‘homosexual’). I have therefore changed and corrected this, but my edit was undone with the suggestion I have “an axe to grind”. I have none other than wantng the factual accuracy of wikipedia pages, and I therefore ask that other editor’s apply the wiki principle of assuming good faith. Wilde’s libel trial ended with himself beng arrested, accused and convicted of “gross indecency”. The intro incorrectly implies this was because of his homosexual love for Lord Alfred Douglas. But that I argue is also a retroactive and misleading implication. It instead was a sentence for his actions with young men of a ‘lower station’ to himself whom he used as prostitutes for sodomy. In support of that I provide the following:

“Prior to Wilde's trials, prosecutions for consensual homosexuality in England were about as rare as they were in the United States at the end of the nineteenth century. What offended Victorian society about Wilde's conduct was not so much that it involved sex with other males. What people found offensive was that Wilde had sex with a large number of young male prostitutes. Wilde was not prosecuted because he was the lover of a social equal who happened to be male. Wilde was prosecuted because of his participation in a not very discreet prostitution ring. Had Wilde merely pursued relationships with men of his own age — especially men of his own social class — he never would have found himself in the dock at Old Bailey.” https://famous-trials.com/wilde/327-home Mystichumwipe (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Your actual edit seems to bear little resemblance to your post here, save for the attempted addition of for accusing him of sodomy which is already covered in the main body of the article, but it could be included in the lead as well. Your changes to the first paragraph are a different matter entirely. FDW777 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Page Format

This page needs to be reformatted and rewritten. The entire article is a biography, when that should be only one section. There should be separate sections for topics such as Lifestyle and Beliefs, Legacy, etc.

2600:8804:88C1:6400:45F5:72DA:EF42:2A8D (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Jefe18

Consensual revisited

A recent book revisits the evidence from the trial and suggests that Wilde pressurised boys.

Review of the book in the Independent

Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Revised Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, and word it how? The way it was inserted was a mess, especially for a GA. Word it in here (and properly sourced), with a consensus, and then add. Duffy BT (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Section hatnotes vs. in-text links

I boldly made this edit to replace three hatnote links to works discussed in a subsection with in-text wikilinks. But I notice this practice is used in several other places in the article, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Thoughts on whether to continue the status quo vs. replacing hatnotes with in-text links where possible? I'm in favour of the change, because it allows the reader to follow (or hover/preview) the link to work X at the point in their reading where it's first mentioned. It's also just a more compact use of space. But I can see an argument that the hatnote links make it a bit easier to see the overall organization at a glance. Colin M (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Another option I didn't consider above would be to keep the hatnotes but also add in-text links at first mention. Also, I found a relevant discussion at the talk page for MOS:LINK, though it didn't reach any consensus. Colin M (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Novelist

Wile wrote one novel. Yes TPoDG, it is important and still resonates today but I am not sure about the inclusion of the term in the lede or infobox. Now, as I type this I realize that it could be argued that the prose short stories he wrote might have some bearing on this. Hopefully this thread will bring other thought to the discussion. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe using "author" rather than "novelist" would work. Though I have to say I like the current wording "poet and playwright" in the opening paragraph. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

When I checked the page this morning it had been entirely replaced by a large swastika on a red background. After refreshing the page it returned to normal.

Thanks for your post. This thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Nazi Party flag instead of articles explains what was happening. MarnetteD|Talk 16:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of The love that dare not speak its name into Oscar Wilde#Regina v. Wilde

There isn't really anything on this page that isn't mentioned there, and it seems like it may have been a spinoff anyway (the references say "see also Ellman", who is not mentioned on The love that dare not speak its name article but is mentioned at Oscar Wilde#Regina v. Wilde). AFreshStart (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"Irish" or "Anglo-Irish"

Looking at the relevant talk page archives (1), (2), it seems like the right wording has always been disputed here, and there's no clear agreement. The main argument for "Irish", other than that his place of birth somehow trumps all other facts, seems to be his mother's republican beliefs. But his parents were both Anglo-Irish as the article itself states, and Wilde lived all his adult life and worked entirely in England. There's also precedent for "Anglo-Irish" on several other pages: see Lord Wellington. "Irish" is also given as his nationality in the header, which seems misleading and partisan to me given the historical context. Ficaia (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The current version is the consensus version. The consensus is on those seeking to include. FDW777 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I guess what I meant to say is it's not a clear agreement as it's always been disputed here. And I thought the arguments for the consensus version boiled down to just the 2 points I mentioned above. Do you have an opinion? At the very least, I think listing his nationality as Irish in the infobox should go. I'm pretty sure there's wiki policy around that: only include nationality when directly relevant to the article, as in a military person. I could be misremembering though. Ficaia (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You may be thinking of WP:CONTEXTBIO. I think that advice is very problematic, and produces results that are consistent, but often absurd. I don't have a strong opinion about the best way to describe Wilde: good sources seem to vary. I hesitate to point out that Dublin was in the United Kingdom during Wilde's lifetime, and I was startled by a plaque in Paris that describes James Joyce as a British author. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Wilde himself said "I am not English. I am Irish". That he had Anglo-Irish parents is covered later in the lead, I see no reason why any more needs to be included. FDW777 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777: Do you have a source on that quote? If it's genuine, it might be worth including in the article. Assuming "Irish" stays in the lede, I still think listing it as his nationality in the infobox goes against the MOS: WP:INFOBOXNTLY. Ficaia (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Take your pick of the many books on Wilde that cover it. FDW777 (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777: Okay, fair enough, given the subject's statement I think it's fair for "Irish" to stay in the lede. But I'm going to remove the nationality section from the infobox per WP:INFOBOXNTLY. Ficaia (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Not bisexual ?

The categories "Bisexual men" and "Bisexual writers" have twice been reverted (by User:Manticore and User:IAmChaos) and I am intrigued as to why.
Both editors reverted to "Irish gay writers" so they accept Wilde was homosexual, but he was also married, with 2 sons - and I have seen no suggestion that he was not their natural father, nor that, up to the birth of his second son, he did not love his wife.
He is listed on the American Institute of Bisexuality site here as being bisexual, along with several other sites. I am not an expert on Wilde, but see that some people try to claim he was heterosexual and then switched to being homosexual, with no overlap, although there is no proof of that. Whether this means he was not bisexual, seems to be a strange argument of nomenclature. We don't appear to have a category for heterosexual writers (which could be seen as discriminatory) so, as it stands, he is only categorized as being gay, whereas his work up to 1886 was before his first homosexual experience (that we know of). What is wrong with the all encompassing description of Bisexual? - Arjayay (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly seems odd, and I would have thought inclusion was firmly in WP:SKYISBLUE territory. The AIB reference should satisfy any need for WP:V. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

Clearly as the Irish Republic did not exist until 1922 this character's nationality had to be from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (distinct from the UK today). This is simply a factual issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.7.89 (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I note that "Duncan Hill" has reverted the change with no contribution to this discussion. There is a further discussion about the style guide to the Irish Republic. The approach given here provides a factual and neutral point of view. 90.225.7.89 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And a further edit by user:MarnetteD with no justification. 90.225.7.89 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is MOS:IMOS BIOPLACE, as I said in my edit summary. Please stop your disruptive edits, and do not lie about me again. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ireland was a constituent country, just as Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are today. We don't say people are from the UK but we use their constituent countries. As a result Ireland is correct. It is not necessary to link for a common country name. Additionally Oscar Wilde was not a character but a real historical person. Canterbury Tail talk 01:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

We do day people are from the UK. The place of a location is within a state. Ireland was not a state and the state is the place of a physical location. Please stop your disruptive edits, and do not lie about me again. 2001:2040:7F:2:3C40:BA56:A05C:1F61 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ireland was a constituent country inside the United Kingdom. We generally just use constituent country unless there is a specific attachment to mention it as the UK specifically. And I am not lying about you, and the only one being disruptive here is you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

But he was born to an Anglo-Irish family. Didn’t Anglo-Irish people usually consider themselves less Irish or not Irish at all? Nobody would claim the Duke of Wellington or Lord Kitchener were Irish, yet the rules for “popular” and “less problematic” figures such as Wilde seem to be different. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:F816:8343:E9E:396 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

Change Oscar Fingal O'Fflahertie Wills Wilde to Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (Extra F in third name is incorrect) Francespc3 (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done

I'm not sure when the extra f crept into the article but, after checking online sites and the bios in my library the OP was correct and the extra letter has been removed from the lede and the infobox. If I missed any in the body of the article please remove it with my thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 22:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of one of Wilde's middle names

@MarnetteD:, @Francespc3:, the extra f was added by @Tamara Gardens: in this edit on 14th February 2023, with the edit summary "Changed spelling of name from "O'Flahertie" to "O'Fflahertie" as per Donald Mead (2020) How did Oscar Wilde spell his name? The Wildean, 56, 63-72". DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the research DuncanHill. Without having the ability to read the ref I'd speculate that - a) it has something to do with the rules of spelling (see the Helen Mirren Miranoff/Miranov birthname situation) and, as these can change over time, they may or may not have applied during Wilde's life time - or b) Mead may have seen OW's signature with that spelling somewhere. I've seen at least half a dozen items with his signature and they were all Oscar Wilde without any of the other names. Of course, there are other possibilities that I haven't thought of. In any event per WikiP naming policies and guidelines we should go with the preponderance of the sources available. Now, it is possible that the "Ff" could be mentioned in a footnote if others think it necessary. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 17:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello MarnetteD. I made the change to the spelling. I cited Mead's article because I suspected that other editors would check biographies etc and see that the name is often spelt with one 'f'. I have read Mead's article and it is cogently argued and definitive. I will quote here a statement from the editor of The Wildean that appeared in the following issue: "In the January 2020 issue of The Wildean, Donald Mead discussed the variant spellings of O'Flaherty/O'Flahertie/O'Fflahertie/O'fflahertie [...] Different versions were used during Wilde's lifetime and have been used ever since. The name is spelt O'Fflahertie on his birth certificate and Wilde used the double 'ff' and 'Ff' together with the 'ie' ending in important documents such as his police court statement in 1895. The spelling O'Fflahertie will be used in future publications of the Oscar Wilde Society." I am not familiar with the Wiki rules on "preponderance of sources" but I would submit that the preponderance of sources has now been shown to be in error and it makes sense to set the record straight. Tamara Gardens (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply Tamara Gardens. Just so you know Wikipedia guidelines uses verifiability for its articles. At the moment this situation bumps into Verifiability, not truth territory. Please don't get me wrong I am not doubting you or Mr Mead or the information in The Wildean. Considering how many sources use the single F it would help if someone else has made the same discovery that Mr Mead has. I am going to try and get more input from other editors by posting on a notice board or two. Unfortunately, this is a busy weekend so I may not get to it right away - my apologies. However things shake out we are going to need a footnote to explain a) that the article uses a single F but research has shown that Ff is on the birth certificate or b) the article uses Ff in spite of most available references use a single F. As someone who has stood on the stage in Leadville where Wilde spoke to the miners in April 1882 I would like to thank you for bringing this to our attention. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD. To my knowledge, nobody else has looked into the spelling, presumably because it has been seen as a fairly minor issue. It is unlikely that anyone else will look into it again, as Don Mead has resolved the issue. Of course, it will take time for his finding to filter into books. The Wildean is published on JSTOR under a three year moving wall. This means that it will be possible for registered users of JSTOR to read Mead's paper from January 2024. Tamara Gardens (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I must admit I was not aware of the Ff spelling until this came up here, but I have just had a quick look on Findmypast and there are several records there, including court records, which do use it. I don't have a subscription there to check them all. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have posted a request for input on a few wikiproject pages. It looks like my option B is going to be the way to go. We probably should wait a few days to see what other editors think. Tamara Gardens I think you mean 2023 for Mead's paper. At my age the years go by pretty fast - just not that fast :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I do think the Mead paper will be available on JSTOR from Jan 2024 as the previous year’s issues (2019) were made available in Jan 2023. Thanks, DuncanHill, for looking on FindMyPast. I hesitate to link to individual pieces of evidence as this feels somewhat like repeating Mead’s research, but as access to his paper is currently limited people might be interested to see this ‘mental photograph’ Wilde completed, which includes his full name with the ‘Ff’ spelling (see top left of first photograph): [7]https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2020/books-and-manuscripts-a-summer-miscellany/wilde-confessions-of-tastes-habits-and-convictions Tamara Gardens (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My mistake Tamara Gardens. Gotta work on my reading skills :-) Thanks for the link as well. Since you made the original edit I think you should have the honor of restoring the info. Please feel free do so when you have the time. MarnetteD|Talk 13:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @MarnetteD. I have now reinstated the Ff spelling and, as per your earlier suggestion, added a footnote with refs. Tamara Gardens (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice work and well done Tamara Gardens. MarnetteD|Talk 15:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'll let people hash it out, but if we use the far far less common spelling, the note needs to be right after that word (or at the very least after his name), not at the end of the sentence. Personally, I think there is also an argument to use the common spelling, especially if Wilde used that, and include the note directly after his full name to the effect that his birth certificate reads differently. Is there an MOS treatise on names we can refer to? Softlavender (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Edited to add: OK, I see above that Wilde himself used the double f, so that's good enough for me. Also, I moved the note to the end of the name rather than in the middle of the name. Thanks for all this great info, Tamara! Softlavender (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023

Change "Oscar Fingal O'Fflahertie Wills Wilde[note 1] (16 October 1854 – 30 November 1900) was an Irish poet and playwright" to "Oscar Fingal O'Fflahertie Wills Wilde[note 1] (16 October 1854 – 30 November 1900) was an Irish writer".

Wilde is also famous for his narrative writing, namely short stories an his only novel "The Picture of Dorian Grey", as it is stated later in the article. Moreover, Wilde also wrote important essays such as "The Soul of Man under Socialism" and "The Decay of Lying". Certainly "writer" better describes the nature of his work. Pepeop96 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Changes to the lead sentence require some level of consensus before implementation. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit ("somdomite" ==>"sodomite")

Point taken, and I apologise for the inconvenience caused. Meltingpot (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting Google Bomb?

type "a british author but an irish convict" in Google gives 1st result to this article. ibicdlcod (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

try typing "sensitive compartmentalized information talent keyhole chess" into google, or chatgpt for that matter. Theheezy (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"Early" death

The lead mentions Wilde's death was 'early' at age 46. I assume the assessment that this was 'early' is a consensus view. However, was this actually young for the time? For some context, the life expectancy in England and Wales for a male born in 1851 was about 40 years.[8]

Perhaps the WP consensus is to judge such matters from our current perspective? If so, Wilde's death was indeed at a notably early age, and the lead is fine as it is. Uncle Alf (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Remember that figures for "average" life expectancy at the time were skewed by huge numbers of early infant and childhood deaths; and working classes would have also fared far worse than more privileged classes. There weren't too many aristocrats and landed gentry dying at 40. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Embedded advertising

"Wilde had a number of favourite haunts in London. These included the Café Royal in Piccadilly (where nowadays at its successor on the same site, the Hotel Café Royal, the Oscar Wilde Lounge serves a traditional afternoon tea),"

This is a piece of embedded advertising and should be deleted. It does not add relevant information about Wilde's life in London at that time. Rpxpx (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Long, confusing sentence

The third sentence of the lead seems a bit clunky and bloated: "He is best remembered for his epigrams and plays, his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, and the circumstances of his criminal conviction for gross indecency for consensual homosexual acts in "one of the first celebrity trials",imprisonment, and early death from meningitis at the age of 46." Is there any way that could be trimmed or split? Zagalejo (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it could be trimmed to “He is best remembered for his epigrams and plays, his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, and his criminal conviction for gross indecency for consensual homosexual acts”. The rest is true but, as you point out, clunky. Not least because following “he is best remembered” with a long list of things feels nonsensical. Tamara Gardens (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)