Talk:Oscar Wilde/Archive 1

Subheadings
I've broken up the existing text with a series of subheadings, to create some structure. More is needed on Wilde's family, his homosexual relationships, and his literary works, considered both within the circumstances of his life, as well as in the larger context which he occupies as a major literary figure. -- The Anome 13:43, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC) :I hope to add more on his early life and family and a more complete bibliography. Filiocht 15:46, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Cribbing
So did we crib without credit from, or did they crib without credit from us? Or did both use a common source? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:55, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page history, it looks like they cribbed us early this year? Filiocht 09:43, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good enough: a pretty trivial infringement of our copyright, unless they did this to a lot of pages: someone else might want to look. At least we aren't in any trouble, which is what I was worried about. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:24, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Links in bibliography
Filiocht, I notice you removed all the links from the bibliography. Yes, these works are referenced in the article, but it seems to me a convenience for anyone trying to find one of Wilde's works to get a set of links from the bibliography. Do you have any actual objection to this? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:29, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Tomb
Could someone who is in Paris take a photo of Wilde's tomb? It's rather impressive. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * There is a good picture of the tomb on the page for Pere Lachaise right here at Wikipedia. Being new to these pages I don't know what would be the best thing to do. Transfer a copy of the picture to this page or create an internal link to it other than the one that is already there for the cemetary. I will let you decide.MarnetteD | Talk 21:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Added it. Unfortunately, though, that's an image with somewhat dubious rights (probably at least fair use, though). A photo with clear GFDL rights would still be nice. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Political Beliefs
I've heard that Wilde was an anarchist. Did he ever write anything political, or does anyone know more about his ideas in this regard? --Tothebarricades.tk 01:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think he was exactly an anarchist. He wasn't the most political person, although his politics were definitely on the left (despite his dandyism and social climbing). You might want to look at his essay "The Soul of Man", also known as "The Soul of Man Under Socialism." -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

It may seem wilful to lead a selection of Oscar Wilde's major critical prose with an essay on left-wing politics, but 'The Soul of Man under Socialism' is more concerned with aesthetics than ethics: Wilde found socialism 'beautiful' because it encouraged freedom and individualism, freeing man to develop his emotional and imaginative lives. Wilde's Utopian scheme, as he admits, is gloriously impractical and contrary to human nature, but that's the point - it's because reforms are based on what is considered practical, rather than what might be possible or even unthinkable, that inequality and suffering persist. His vision of a future in which men dream and absorb Art as vaguely-imagined machines do all the menial work, reads like a delightful lampoon of HG Wells. Favourite Quotations: 'the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist and becomes a dull or amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman' "Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known.").--Stratofortress 15:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'I think I am rather more than a Socialist. I am something of an Anarchist, I believe,' -Oscar Wilde. "He aslo[sic] took up the case of possibly the most famous political prisoners of his era. Along with George Bernard Shaw, he signed a petition for the release of the Haymarket martyrs (anarchist trade unionists executed for their role in the 8- hour day movement)." 

Saint Sebastian: "The Cursed Wanderer"?
I reverted the following recent anonymous change pending a citation "He went under the assumed name of 'Sebastian Melmoth', after Saint Sebastian: "The Cursed Wanderer," as well as the central character of the gothic novel Melmoth the Wanderer." The bolded portion was inserted; I reverted it. If there is any basis for it, it probably should be in the article, but it would be news to me, and on the basis of what I see this seems just as likely to be vandalism as a useful edit. Google search on "Saint Sebastian" + "The Cursed Wanderer" produces nothing. Got a citation? Great, then I'll be glad to see it restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:44, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that things have gotten a little mixed here. The Melmoth part of the name, as you state, comes the novel "Melmoth the Wanderer" which was written by Oscar's grand uncle, on his mother's side, the Reverend Charles Maturin. Melmoth was a mysterious, satanic hero who was cursed to roam the earth. The Sebastian comes from Saint Sebastian whose youthful body was pierced with arrows. The most famous painting of him is by Guido Reni, which Wilde saw, and commented on, during his trip to Italy when he was 21. I have never heard Sebastian referred to as the "Cursed Wanderer". He is, however, for a variety of reasons, the favorite saint of the gay community. Yukio Mishima, in his autobiographical novel "Confessions of a Mask", claims to have been greatly effected by this painting as a young man. I mention this because it is one of several things that are interesting to compare and contrast in the lives of these two extraordinary authors. MarnetteD 04:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lord Alfred Douglas
afaik, Bosie wasn't just Wilde's nickname for him, but a general nickname? --little Alex 14:46, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe that is true. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Footer

 * Oscar Wilde/Endicia - making footer link for template. -==SV 04:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oscar Wilde/Biblio - making footer link for template. -==SV 04:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Why? This seems annoying, harder for people to edit without serious expertise in how things work (e.g. I would guess that half of our editors couldn't find the bibliography page to edit it), follows no standard that I am familiar with, and seems to violate the rule against subpages. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:21, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I understand that it was a change, and was not entirely sure if most people would like it. It had not occured to me that people would find it hard to find the link or edit these, since I included them above. I was not aware of policy, because I have'nt written any policy lately. ;) -==SV 20:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Last words
The article say his last words are often given as "My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One or other of us has got to go." That is a rather clumsy version of what I've heard: "Either that wallpaper goes or I do." Is there a citation for either version? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've always heard your version, but never seen a source given. Note that Wikiquote has the (unsourced) version given in the article. Filiocht 14:59, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the last days that Wilde was able to leave his rooms was October 29th, 1900. Robert Ross took him to a cafe where he drank absinthe. He said to his friend Claire de Pratz "My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One or the other of us has to go." The main source for this is Ellman's biography, where he cites de Pratz reminiscences to G. de Saix and Harris' biography. While it is a wonderful, Wildean, idea that these were his last words Wilde did not die until November 30th. The letters of Reggie Turner and Robert Ross describe the harrowing last few days of Oscar's life are quoted in full in Holland and Davis' massive "The Complete Letters of Oscar Wilde" MarnetteD 03:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hesketh Pearson has a slightly different version again, but does not give an attribution (maybe Robert Ross, but it's not clear). '"It is killing me," he complained, adding resignedly, as if the worst were over, "One of us had to go."' David Clouston 5/7/05

"gay" or "homosexual"
On his deathbed, he was cured of his gayness by a priest. He knew he had to choose to not be gay to get into heaven. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Homosexual is an offensive term. Many dictionary usage guides warn against such language.  I can provide links if you wish.  Homosexual is one the same level as nigger, engine, and negro.  I don't see us writing articles on Negro History so therefore I suggest we follow the dictionary usage guides on homosexual. Apollomelos 10:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "Engine"? I have never heard this term applied to a human. What are you talking about?
 * The analogy to "negro" is legitimate, the analogy to "nigger" is not. "Homosexual" was, like "negro", the prevailing and acceptable term within living memory.
 * I would argue that "gay" is a cultural term, and its application before a certain point in history is, well, writing history backwards, reading the present into the past. It relates to an identity that only began to emerge in the late 1960s. And I speak as someone who hung out in the West Village at that time. It's not as inappropriate in Wilde's case as in some, because he is a clear precursor to that identity. Still, in the context in which it comes up in this article&mdash;"Wilde's sexual orientation has variously been considered bisexual or gay" or "Wilde's sexual orientation has variously been considered bisexual or homosexual"&mdash;I think "homosexual" the correct word, considering the period in question, is "homosexual". It is about sexual identity (in practice, he clearly had sex with persons of both sexes), and these were the ones that would have had meaning in his time; in fact, even these were quite new constructs, superseding the horribly offensive "Sodomite" (or for an idiot like the Marquess of Queensbury, "Somdomite"). -- Jmabel | Talk 20:16, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Normally I'm against using 'gay' too far back in history, but in Wilde's case I don't really think its a problem. -Seth Mahoney 20:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI, I believe that "homosexual" was also coined after Wilde's death, so the issue of "gay" being more anachronistic is moot. -Willmcw 20:57, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * The term dates from the late 1860s. See Homosexual. It had been around for an entire generation at the time of Wilde's trial. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that "homosexual" should be used in place of "gay". As I have always known it, homosexual is a clinical term, numerous works of queer theory, history, etc. use it in their titles and as a homosexual, I have never taken offense to it, nor have I known anyone who would. (Indeed, the Wikipedia entry on Gay discusses on the history of the word itself unlike the entry on homosexuality which discusses the sexuality.) "Gay" on the other hand is too modern to describe Wilde and the word also has modern connotations. Therefore it is anachronistic. Ganymead 07:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The terms "gay" and "homosexual" both have the same meanings in the dictionary. A man who has sex with another man. However the term "homosexual" is clearly marked as offensive. I mean if we were saying he was carrying around a rainbow flag I could see the problem. And it was clear he was involved in the "homosexual" sub-culture therefor the term "gay" is better because "homosexual" is usually reserved for sexual aspects. Apollomelos 01:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) When you cite "the dictionary", please say what dictionary.
 * 2) Again, this is a matter of connotations in the relevant chronological period. I agree that Wilde is enough of a prototype of what emerged as a "gay" identity that the word is relatively unproblematic in talking about him, but in general, when writing about the 1890s, that word is anachronistic. "Gayness" is not just a matter of sexual acts, it is a matter of identity. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:51, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, 'homosexual' does not mean a man who has sex with another man. -Seth Mahoney 23:24, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would dispute the assertion made above that "gay" is a purely cultural term. Not only is it the more neutral term to describe a homosexual it is also the more common term. It's usage in this page is not anachronistic - this is a contemporary encyclopaedia. We do not, for example, write the pages on Medieval history in Middle English, for example. --Axon 09:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you say that Socrates was gay? If so, then so was Wilde. But "gay" to me has cultural overtones that should restrict it to refer only to 20th c. and later practices. "Homosexual" seems a much more general term (it is even applied to animals) and includes a host of homosexualities, including gay culture. As for Wilde's being a precursor to gay culture, I think that most gays would demur when confronted with his preference for youths, and the importance he himself placed on an age difference. If anything, he is a successor to classical pederasty. Haiduc 10:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wilde was clearly more similar to the modern gay person than was Socrates, let's get that much clear. Obviously, he's not the same sort of gay that we mean when we use the word 'gay' today, but similar issues come up when describing him as homosexual - as you note, he appears to be a successor to classical pederasty more than he appears homosexual in the way most of us use the term today.  I don't see a sharp line there, though.  There are gay men today who prefer intergenerational relationships (though, for legal reasons, perhaps not "youths") who are, regardless of who thinks what about who they have sex with, gay.  There are also similarities between Wilde and the contemporary gay man that are lost when the word 'homosexual' is used.  Let me put it this way: While Socrates would likely find himself lost in modern gay culture, chances are that Wilde would not.  -Seth Mahoney 19:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

In Wilde's case the term "gay" is both anachronistic and misleading; "gay" not only implies some sort of politics and specific identity, it only came into common use fairly recently. On the other hand, "homosexual" is both potentially offensive and probably not strictly correct in Wilde's case. Both "gay" and "homosexual" suggest and imply exclusivity of attraction; Wilde was married to a woman with whom he had several children. By all accounts he was in love with her and was much distressed to lose her. If anything, a good case could be made (indeed, such a case has been made) for Wilde being bisexual, but that term wouldn't be strictly satisfactory either. Let's focus on what the man did rather than what we think he was. Exploding Boy 22:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Points taken, though "'gay ... implies some sort of politics"? That one I doubt.  Anyhow, what is your proposal regarding what Wilde did sexually, since there is obviously interest at least in who he did it with?  -Seth Mahoney 00:28, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Without going into detail about "politics," if we can provide specific information about Wilde's sexual partners, so much the better for the article. But we don't need to state categorically that he was "this" or "that." Exploding Boy 02:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think "politics" is quite the right word, but how about "cultural identity"? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * What exactly does "gay" imply as a cultural identity? I'm as mystified by that as I am by the idea that it implies a certain specific political outlook. Bearcat 14:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not an easily answered question, but widespread use of the term "gay" dates from the period in which "gay liberation" was replacing the "homophile movement", and a call for acceptance by society at large and pride from within the gay community superseded a call for mere toleration by society at large and self-acceptance within the community. I could go on, but it's about midnight where I am right now, and I'm about to call it a night; if someone else wants to expand on this (hey, maybe someone who is gay?), great. If not, I hope to get back to this, but (sorry, sincerely) I have not been fully able to keep up with my watchlist lately, and my crunch will get worse long before it getss better. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Homosexual" is offensive? I've never heard of it. It's true that "gay" is used by several self-lobbying group, but it doesn't mean one or the other is offensive. Mandel July 6, 2005 19:26 (UTC)
 * If you asked Oscar Wilde if he was "gay", he might say "Yes" but he would mean happy, light-hearted and joyful, not homosexual. The word "gay" in the modern context feels totally wrong and out of place in an article about a late Victorian and early Edwardian man. If we don't want to say he was a homosexual, then perhaps we can say that he participated in homosexual practices. And I too have never seen or heard of homosexual being an offensive term, unless perhaps one is looking to be offended. Dabbler 6 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)


 * 'Homosexual' is sometimes taken as offensive because of its historical use as a pathologizing term. There is also a general move away from categorizing people with nouns toward categorizing them with adjectives (compare 'homosexual' and 'gay person' to 'black' and the more current 'black person').  -Seth Mahoney July 6, 2005 20:46 (UTC)


 * So would "bisexual" and "heterosexual" be offensive as well? They have the same rootword. Mandel July 7, 2005 02:58 (UTC)


 * Not for the same reason at least, because, except for an extremely limited period of time neither was used to pathologize. 'Homosexual', on the other hand, has a long history of being used to mark gay people as sick, demented, and inferior.  It also marks a history of some seriously sick stuff being done to gay people by psychologists who supposedly wanted to help them.  'Heterosexual' originally marked out sexual deviance too, but the meaning changed fairly quickly, so it lacks the history of 'homosexual', and the same goes for 'bisexual', which actually has enjoyed brief periods wherein the people the term marked out were seen as the only sane people (sexually speaking) out there (that is, both gay and straight people were seen as a little twisted).  -Seth Mahoney July 7, 2005 03:58 (UTC)


 * In that case, the word "straight" is also massively offensive. It insinuates that heterosexuals are "straight" and the gay people "crooked", and ought to be banned from all polite usage. We need to be correct here. Mandel July 7, 2005 15:08 (UTC)


 * Actually, 'straight', when referring to sexuality, originally referred to a person who was gay and had "gone straight" - that is, had decided to try to live as a heterosexual for a while. It was a term used almost exclusively within the gay community before being adopted elsewhere.  Likely, considering its origins, it had ironic overtones.  Though, in the end, the etymology you're constructing here doesn't differ significantly from contemporary usage of the word 'queer', a word that I personally think is great.  -Seth Mahoney July 7, 2005 17:42 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary has as the 2nd meaning of the word "gay" "(euphemism) dissolute, immoral; (slang) homosexual, frequented by homosexuals." So I suppose when we read gay being applied to people we should consider them to be dissolute and immoral? Doesn't sound very inoffensive to me. My main concern is that "gay" has such overtones, both pejorative and positive to some, that we should avoid its use in an NPOV article. Dabbler 7 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)


 * Do people actually use the word 'gay' to refer generally to things that are immoral? I wouldn't be surprised if either that meaning led to gay=homosexual or gay=homosexual led to that meaning.  Regardless, I don't think we have to use 'gay' here, though I'm with those who insist that 'homosexual' is offensive.  Maybe we should look up the etymology and historical usage of 'queer' to see if it is at all applicable.  -Seth Mahoney July 7, 2005 17:42 (UTC)
 * Reading the article again I sdee that it is Wilde's sexual orientation that is described as "bisexual or gay", not Wilde himself, in other words an adjectival usage not a nominal one. Would it be considered offensive to describe his sexual orientation as "bisexual or homosexual"? Dabbler 7 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)


 * All these talk made me want to get a new dictionary, and fast. Clearly my old battered battlehorse is not up to date, as it doesn't state anything about homosexual being offensive. Mandel July 8, 2005 14:15 (UTC)


 * The preference for "gay" over "homosexual" is certainly no earlier than the mid-1960s, and probably not well-established at least until the mid-1970s. In fact, as late as mid-20th century, while "gay" had sexual connotations, they weren't particularly homosexual connotations. I'd venture that as late as 1940 "gay district" would have simply meant "red light district". (Yes, we're off-topic.) When is your dictionary from? -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 23:00 (UTC)

1998, making it not exactly old, but serves me quite well. Mandel July 9, 2005 10:22 (UTC)

I find it important to note that, although several people have talked about how homosexual is marked as offensive in "the dictionary", nobody has cited any actual dictionary. Until someone does, I see no reason to believe these claims. A summary of the sources I have checked: Based on this I see no problem at all with using "homosexual" in this article. EldKatt (Talk) 15:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The sixth edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (copyrighted in 2000) does not mention the alleged problem.
 * The fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (also copyrighted in 2000), according to dictionary.com, does mention that many people avoid using it, but also states that it "is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally".
 * The third edition of Nordstedts stora svensk-engelska ordbok (a Swedish-English dictionary, also copyrighted in 2000) gives "homosexual" as the main translation in the entry for homosexuell, with no mention of any special connotations. "Gay" is also mentioned, but tagged as informal (vardaglig).


 * See . The citation there is from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2004), published by Houghton Mifflin. That is to say, a later edition of one of the same dictionaries you cite. I think the matter is a bit trickier than the adjective/noun remark they make, someone may have been a bit careless. "Homosexual act" or "homosexual practice" would not be an offensive use; "a homosexual person" or "he is homosexual" would carry exactly the same offensive sense as the noun "a homosexual".


 * As for the claim that "gay" is informal, that would make it awfully hard to account for names such as "The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force" or the "Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation". I would say this is more a sign that some dictionaries are lagging in their tracking of changes in the language in the reasonably dynamic area of vocabulary for human sexuality.


 * Again, though, this all applies to present-day usage. In Wilde's own time, "homosexual" would have been the most polite term. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 28 November

2005 (UTC)


 * I too do not understand this sudden claim that 'homosexual' is offensive. Is this an American thing? If so, in the UK it's not like that at all, if anything 'gay' is more offensive because of it's history of being slang for 'bad' i.e. 'you're so gay!' would mean 'you're such a loser!' where as saying 'you're homosexual' is unlikely to contain such negative connotations. However, the important thing here I think is, as already pointed out, that contemporary use of the word 'gay' would have been entirely different. Thus in context 'homosexual' is more appropriate. I tend to think of 'homosexual' as more objective and 'gay' as more colloquial, so in those terms also is the former more apt for such an article.

83.216.149.24 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A cultural note for what it's worth: I used to live in Bangladesh (I was working there), and the term "gay" meant a prostitute, a female one - the newspapers would have articles from time to time about the arrest of "gay girls", who certainly weren't feeling particularly happy. This was in Bengali English, of course, not in Beglai - they have a number of English-language newspapers, and they use some vocab which is quite distinctive. (Cattle rustlers, for example, always steal "cattle-heads" never just cows). A lot of this vocab seems to date from late Victorian times, so I imagine that this use of "gay=prostitute" dates from the latter half of the 19th century. Since "gay=homosexual" didn't really come into popular use until the latter half of the 20th century, I imagine that there was some association between homosexuality and prostitution, with the homomesual connotation taking a secondary place, in Wilde's own day. Fascinating subject anyway. And I don't find the word "homosexual" offensive, just a bit of a mouthful - "gay" is much snappier. PiCo 11:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wilde's picture
The first picture of Wilde, the one directly opposite the table of contents, looks horribly distorted. Is this purposeful, i.e. to conform to screen limits, or accidental? It had previously been in a more proportional form. Wally 02:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The image seems really messed up, related to someone's vandalism involving a picture of a fish. I tried fixing it, but I think there is some sort of caching issue. I hope it will right itself, given time. If not, someone who knows more than I do about this type of thing will need to fix it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems fine now. Filiocht 09:19, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Plays About Wilde
I have reverted the text about the 2004 play because it seems much more credible the way that it was. Often something like that increases ticket sales, and wouldn't Wiki need better sources to explain that kind of censorship in the U.K. MarnetteD | Talk 19:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Diversions and Delights was written by John Gay who was born in 1924. I have used the roman numerals in parentheses to delineate him from the English poet and playwright of the 1700's. I did not find any discussion of how to do this in the help pages, but if I have done this in a way that Wikipedia does not endorse I hope that the editors for the Oscar Wilde page will feel free to change it. MarnetteD | Talk 19:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed this to John Gay which displays as John Gay. You also might want to create a page John Gay (disambiguation). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bold text

Oscar Wilde and Anarchism
Doing some research on oscar wilde, i just found this interesting article, http://www.struggle.ws/ws98/ws53_wilde.html

It also provides a link to Wilde's essay on socialism (http://www.struggle.ws/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html)

Oscar Wilde's socialism

Yet all is well; he has but passed To Life's appointed bourne: And alien tears will fill for him Pity's long broken urn For his mourners be outcast men, And outcasts always mourn.

Paris has had its fair share of famous people die in it. Most of them have ended up in the Pere La Chaise cemetery and Oscar Wilde is one of them. Of all the people buried there, that was the one grave I had to see when I entered that cemetery on a brisk March morning. I admire him because he was the master of that Irish pastime of extracting the Michael.

He was at first lauded by a society which would later reject him; as much for what he believed as for what he did. He believed his mourners would be outcasts because he never felt part of a society that holds homophobia as an attribute rather than what it really is, a disease.

"I think I am rather more than a Socialist. I am something of an Anarchist, I believe..."

Oscar Wilde was also inspired by politics. He was not blind to the obvious early failings of modern day society. The poverty he wrote about over a century ago, in 'The soul of man under Socialism', exists on the streets of Dublin today. Throughout this winter I've walked to work past bodies huddled under blankets in St. Stephen's Green, wheezing with bronchitis in the frosty air.

Wilde wrote about the poor in relation to charity "the best amongst them are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient and rebellious....Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates which is considered a form of stealing".

Wilde was living in a time when an estimated 2 million people were living in poverty in London. The solution would come under socialism, where property would be converted from private into public wealth and society would be restored to "its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the well-being of each member of the community." In the meantime for the poor "why should they be grateful with the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table?"

"If the socialism is authoritarian; if there are governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if in a word, we are to have industrial tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first."

Wilde was certain of what kind of future he wanted for humanity. As the quote above indicates he did not wish to see an industrial tyranny rise in the name of Socialism. "All modes of Government are failures", he maintained, while social democracy is "the bludgeoning of people by the people for the people". His main obsession was with what he termed "individualism". I think it's fair to interpret this as a will for freedom. "Socialism itself will be of value because it will lead to individualism."

He opposed the locking up of people because they had committed crimes against property, arguing "a community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment rather than the occasional occurrence of crime".

He aslo took up the case of possibly the most famous political prisoners of his era. Along with George Bernard Shaw, he signed a petition for the release of the Haymarket martyrs (anarchist trade unionists executed for their role in the 8- hour day movement). He saw through the lies and the rail-roading they were receiving in that court in Chicago.

"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not even worth glancing at."

Wilde lived his life never once renouncing his beliefs or his choices. His politics have been hidden over the years since he died in 1900. He wrote his essay on 'The Soul of Man under Socialism' over one hundred years ago, yet the ideas expressed are still vitally relevant. He expressed the idea that we all exist and only some of us really live. Some of us live because we're pushing for a different world to the one that surrounds us. Read him and remember "Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue."

by Dermot Sreenan

Can some of this content/topic be added?

--Black Dagger 05:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

A more direct quote demonstrating his dislike of States/Laws, and sympathy(at least) of Anarchism, is the following I know not whether Laws be Right Or whether Laws be Wrong... But this I know, that every Law Which men have made for Man Since first Man took his brother's life And the sad world began But straws the wheat and saves the chaff With a most Evil fan

I'd say being that critical of laws would hint strong approval for Anarchism, in the least....

Caption
Right now, one of the captions says, "Affectionally (though informally) known as 'the Queer on his Rear' or 'the Fag on the Crag'". I assume this is true; I'm not sure whether it belongs in the article. Opinions sought. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Photo
I have a photo I took in 2002 of Wilde's tomb somewhere but I can't find it at the moment. Here is one I did find:



Adam 02:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Burmese Masque
An anon recently added this; I took a shot at editing it, but I don't know the piece. My sole reference was (accessed 26 July  2005), which looks probably solid. If anyone can do better, great. Sounds like it deserves an article of its own: note the remark there about dispute over authorship. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I gave it a shot. I gave some context for the authorship dispute from what I found, although the microfilm you point to offers a counterpoint. Would add it, except would like a heftier source. I think you're right, though, it would make an excellent page.--DNicholls 05:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Christian?
On what basis is Wilde included in the category "Christian writers"? He made a deathbed conversion to Roman Catholicism; other than that, I've never heard of him being a practicing Christian. Is there something I'm unaware of, or is this category so broad as to include every writer born into a nominally Christian background (in which case it seems a useless category, probably worthy of deletion). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wilde was not mearly a deathbed convert. Catholicism had held a stong emotional pull on him from an early age. He attended Masses thoughout his life and attended audiences with two Popes (Pius IX and Leo XIII). After he was released from prison, he requested a six month spiritual retreat with the Jesuits, but was refused.

Also consider the Christian nature of some of his Childrens' stories. The Fisherman and his Soul, The Selfish Giant, and The Young King all contain overt christian themes. Iron Ghost 10:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Still seems thin to me. The bulk of Wilde's work is secular. By similar criteria, an awful lot of people could be called Christian writers. I might add that I think the inclusion of Evelyn Waugh in the category is equally tenuous. However, I'm not going to pursue this further. I'm glad to see there is at least a rationale. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The criteria I used were that Wilde was a Christian, and that he wrote on Christian themes. Considering the category, these seem like pretty good criteria to me. If you still think this is rather thin then I invite you to familiarise yourself with Wilde's poetry, which should leave you in no doubt as to his religious position. Iron Ghost 22:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Teleny
This is impossible to verify, I think, but an interesting point, anyway - arguably, Wilde at least supervised / assisted with the publication of this pornographic novel in 1893 - although it is clearly the work of several writers. As is also apparent in Dorian Gray, Wilde appears to nurture a synergy between homosociality and the aesthetics of violence (by homosocial I mean the full spectrum of male relations, not only homosexuality). Can this be reconciled with his socialism? And, if we assume this synergy exists, can it be read as part of a wider literary canon inclusive of indebted authors like Saki?--RowanM 11:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Declaration of Genius
The article says currently: "Although Wilde later claimed to have told the customs officer "I have nothing to declare except my genius", historians and biographers have concluded that this is an embellishment of Wilde's as there is no contemporary evidence that this occurred."

This is not as I've heard the story. I understood the first known occurrence of the "quote" was in a publication by (??) Frank Harris, not only many years after it was supposed to have been uttered, but after Wilde's own death. If this is so, then Wilde could never have claimed to have said it. Is there any documentary evidence that the "quote" was extant in Wilde's lifetime? JackofOz 22:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have a specific answer, but in case you don't know, Harris knew Wilde quite well, and his memoir of Wilde was largely based on their conversations. The exact degree of its accuracy has been questioned, but even though the rampantly heterosexual Harris was not entirely comfortable with Wilde's sexuality, it's probably the closest thing there is to being Wilde's own memoir. No, scratch that: if Wilde had lived long enough to write a memoir, it would almost certainly have been less factual than Harris's. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but this does not really resolve the point I was making. I believe that the best we can say is that the phrase is attributed to him, that is, somebody says he said it.  As far as I know, we do not know that it was Wilde himself who claimed to have said it.  Unless there is some evidence of his having claimed to have done so, that I am unaware of.  JackofOz 01:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In a quick check of the many Wilde biographies that I have in my library it is quoted in all but Vyvyan Holland's 'Son of Oscar Wilde' (which makes sense since he is recording his memories of his father and not his fathers life). This includes works by Frank Harris, H. Montgomery Hyde and Arthur Ransome - all of whom new Wilde while he was alive. Even Merlin Holland quotes it in his book 'The Wilde Album'. While most biographies state the epigram as fact more recent ones have pointed out that no mention of it is made in the New York papers of Jan. 1882 and that this was at a time when they were reporting virtually every movement that Wilde made and every phrase that he uttered. While it is true that legends about historical figures often grow after their deaths I find it hard to believe that so many sources that knew Wilde would spontaneously have attributed it to him after his passing. My own learning about Wilde (which has carried on over 28 years now and includes a healthy dose of understanding that myth and fact blur in both delightful and frustrating ways when researching his life) has found that the phrase in question is most often quoted as being a part of Wilde's 'Reflections on America', which was the name given to the series of informal lectures he gave about his year long tour of America in various parts of Britian in 1883 and 1884. The first place that I encountered it, in a source other than in the existing biographies, was in the Edinburgh libraries newspaper archives in a paper reporting his lecture there, which was published in 1883. Unfortunately, I saw this 25 years ago when I was hitchhiking around Scotland. My interest in Wilde back then was more cursory and did not include keeping a precise bibliography and I did not record which paper it was and I offer my apologies for not being able to be more precise. I understand your concerns Jack of Oz - and I know that my experience may not be a satisfactory explanation to your objection - I wonder whether other wiki members who have an interest in Wilde, and who live in Britian (which I do not) might be able to research their own newspaper archives and give you a more precise source. User:MarnetteD | Talk 20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the care you took with that reply, MarnetteD. So it seems the quote was extant in 1883, only a year after it was allegedly uttered.  The plot thickens.  JackofOz 22:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Pederastic lovers catagory
It should be noted that Lord Alfred Douglas was over 18 when his affair with Wilde began. Therefore, Wilde cannot be a pederastic lover. CaveatLector 02:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Lord Alfred is not the candidate, but Robbie Ross, who was seventeen and Oscar's first boy. Haiduc 03:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing either way about whether Wilde and Ross (or Douglas) were "pederastic lovers", but according to Niel McKenna's recent biography The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde (2003), it's a persistent myth that Ross was Wilde's first male lover. Wilde was aware of his homosexuality from the moment of his first kiss with another boy at age 16, and lived with male lover Frank Miles (two years his senior) for several years before his marriage in 1884. Why is 18 the cut-off age for pederasty anyway? If it's a legal definition, it's an anachronistic one — there was no homosexual age of consent in Wilde's time. ntennis 03:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sexological definitions have to be used, not legal ones, otherwise it would be impossible to talk about pederasty as anything other than a legal topic, which is clearly not the academic sense of it. As for cut-off age, personally I think it is absurd since human experience does not lend itself to that kind of analysis, but that is what we have to work with at the present time, see Bullough's definition of it at Category:Pederasty. For a better definition of it, see Wilde's defense at the time of his trial, it is the quintessential "Pederastic Manifesto" because it hinges the relationship on the difference between the lovers, not their equality. I have not yet gotten to McKenna's book, what does he say about the accusation (by the hotel maid) at his trial that he used to bring up street boys to his hotel room, and the sheets would be soiled the next day? Haiduc 12:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Paederasty has specific implications, namely a (usually socially sanctioned) relationship characterized by a significant difference in age and status (with one partner being recognized as an adult, and the other as a child or a youth), with some sort of paedagogical element. I don't think the shoe fits here. Exploding Boy 03:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually all that fits with Lord Alfred, except he is excused by reason of his advanced chronological age. Here the argument hinges on Ross, and until that is refuted I do not see how you can avoid the issue. Otherwise, I agree with everything you say. Haiduc 12:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I will not change the catagory back quite yet, but I agree with Exploding boy and ntennis that this catagory probably does not fit here. Why is 18 the cutoff age? How close to 18 was Ross when the affair happened? Why would that even matter? It seems rather willy-nilly to brand Wilde with this catagory on something that amounts to a techincality, doesn't it? The entire catagory seems dubious, considering the fact that Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar (niether of them attested pederasts in any sense) are on the list yet Socrates (rather famous for pederasty, as were all the Greek aristocracy of his era) is left off. I think I'll consider renominating this catagory for deletion. CaveatLector 07:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the cutoff age, see above. As for the ancients, Alexander is a settled matter per the ancients (see article), Caesar arguable and should be argued both ways and removed if consensus calls for it. As for Socrates, I have simply not gotten around to dealing with the objections of another user, but I agree, he needs to be there. Haiduc 12:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Then again...after looking through the log of the last few CfD's on this, I'm of two minds on this issue. The catagory has some merit in staying, though I feel as though it needs some serious modification and cleaning up.  Modification in the sense that you cannot historically define pederasty as it is defined today (through the age line of 18, as in the case of Wilde.  Having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old is truly picking nits when it comes to labeling someone as pederastic).  I think there needs to be a set standard for inclusion in the catagory that does not include age. I also think that the catagory, short of being renamed, should include an article that mentions this particular aspect of Ancient Greek Culture and the other cultures in which pederasty was socially acceptable.  I also feel as though strong evidence is needed for inclusion (in the case of Alexander, I am not aware of any evidence of this whatsover, and no truly reliable evidence for Julius Caesar's inclusion.  You have to realize that this catagory is also as historically tricky as the LGBT catagory, as it assumes that these groups have some sort of history before the invention of the terms to describe them.  I would object to Socrates being included in the LGBT catagory (which I will check on) because he simply cannot be used as a representitive of what it means to be LGBT today.  It seems to me that this catagory as well as every catagory that deals with sexualities, needs some serious meditation.  CaveatLector 08:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the validity of the category, I think the more you study the history, the more you will see that it is unavoidable. As for the age thing, I agree, it is a rough measure. Some relationships with youths over 18 probably should be included, and some with youth below that age should be excluded. But you would have to get into the heads of the people involved, and that cannot be done. The same thing could be argued of all sexual relationships. There are some heterosexual relationships that probably should not be considered as such, despite consummation and/or impregnation, etc, etc. In as much as that relates to your desire to set another standard for inclusion, I would love to do that but only for publication elsewhere because that would be original research and out of place here. But it should be done. I do not understand your "should include an article that mentions this particular aspect of Ancient Greek Culture and the other cultures in which pederasty was socially acceptable" even if I change your "article" to "paragraph." Sounds like an apologia to me, where none is needed. I do agree that all this material requires a great deal of thought and cannot be treated lightly. Unfortunately, until now it has been treated lightly, universally covered up and made to seem something it is not, whether by masking it as heterosexuality or as androphilia. Haiduc 12:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ross
This paragraph may be misleading, since Ross seems to claim not that he was the first male that Wilde had had relations with, but the first "boy". Perhaps we do not have to place McKenna in contraposition to the previous material, I see no conflict there. ''Later, Ross boasted to Lord Alfred Douglas that he was "the first boy Oscar ever had" and there seems to have been much jealousy between them. However, Neil McKenna's more recent biography, The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde (2003), demonstrates convincingly that Wilde was aware of his homosexuality from the moment of his first kiss with another boy at age 16, and had in fact lived with male lover Frank Miles (two years his senior) for several years before his marriage in 1884.'' Haiduc 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I added that content while modifying the page's previous claims that Wilde was introduced to homosexuality by Ross. This version of events has been near-universal until the last few years, but in light of McKenna's evidence, appears to be no longer tenable. I've only read an excerpt, but I think the book might shed some light on whether Ross was indeed the first "boy" Wilde "had". I would like to know the source of Ross's boast. Was it a letter from Ross to Douglas? Or hearsay? If he did say it, did he really mean that Wilde had only had "men" and not "boys" before meeting him? Seems unlikely to me, but certainly possible. Or was Ross mistaken? Does anyone have McKenna's book? ntennis 12:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Gaol time
According to the Center Theatre Group's Performances program for February 2006 that was available at the run of "The Importance of Being Ernest" at the Ahmanson Theatre this year, "Solitary confinement in Reading gaol and eight hours a day on the treadmill soon destroyed Wilde."

Perhaps some elaboration of what Wilde endured in gaol is appropriate for this article? Or a reference to what the British government considered normal gaol conditions at that time? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.233.130 (talk • contribs) 8 March 2006.


 * Yes, I think that would be an appropriate addition. - Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

link
Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

Reverts
@Dbiv: I only restored original content that had been removed without explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. I am the author of it. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 12:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde in modern culture
Does anyone really see the point of having this section? If we keep reverting Uncyclopedia, why do we allow equally meaningless and irrelevant stuff here? I like the Monty python sketch, but it is not really relevant to Wilde. Dabbler 03:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Uncyclopedia is reverted because some think that it's worth mentioning, but others think that Uncyclopedia is so obscure that it not many people are going to know about it. The question is whether the things being mentioned are well-known enough.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that there is any sort of scale to measure this.-- The Ninth Bright Shiner  talk 00:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. It serves no encycloedic function. Funny though it is, very few people know about Uncyclopedia, so because it is directly related to Wilde it is mentioned as an external link. So let this die. Tyler 15:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But does any of the modern culture section have a encyclopedic function? It seems Uncyclopedia is specifically targeted while other equally obscure or slight references are allowed to stand. I would either remove the whole thing or actually try to come to an agreement whether Uncyclopedia should be mentioned (and no, what we have now is not an agreement. Dozens of people have added the reference while the same handful repeatedly revert it citing some imaginary consensus. I don't know what definition of "consensus" that might be, but it's surely not majority opinion or grounded in consistent logic.)


 * I have no dog in this fight, but I've been watching it for some time now and, really, this is silly. --Franz 16:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the entire section should be deleted, and the incidents mentioned put on the artciles pertaining to them, if they're relevant enough.-- The Ninth Bright Shiner  talk 20:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. I could imagine a useful paragraph or two on the iconic use of Wilde as the archetype of a certain kind of wit widely associated with gay identity, and mentioning Morrissey and Todd Haynes in that respect would be relevant; similarly, Uncyclopedia and Monty Python parodies of Wilde's verbal style would be relevant in that context; most of these other references, as far as I know, say nothing interesting about him, they're just namechecks. - Jmabel | Talk 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold: References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture. I could only think of one category (Category:Popular culture); I'm sure it deserves others. - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the idea of removing the pop culture stuff from main articles. This has been problematic when I've tried it in the past.  During the nomination to feature status of San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge there was discussion about the trivia section (see the bottom of the page) and it was suggested that the trivia section be moved to San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film, which I did and the article reached feature status.  Recently San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film was  successfully nominated for deletion the arguments being that it should be merged into the parent article!  I often see the same problem with lists and categories.  The lists come up at AFD and get deleted with the discussion that it should be a category.  The category then comes up at CFD and the reason is that it should be a list.  To prevent this cyclical waste of time and effort, we need to have cleared guidelines for these things and admins need to be empowered to enforce the guidelines, even over the will of the masses if they cannont raise a good argument to the contrary. WP:NOT doesn't cover this problem, and WP:TRIVIA is just an essay. -- Samuel Wantman 07:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The basic issue is that people who hang out on the "stuff for deletion" boards are people who like deleting things. The people who do featured article reviews like demanding changes to articles.  I think it's basically insoluble. john k 12:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A Woman of No Importance
The article refers to A Woman of No Importance as a comedy. While it is in a way, it is also heavy in social commentary and all that drama stuff (sorry, tired, can't write tonight). Perhaps it is worth mentioning that it was not so light as plays such as The Importance of Being Ernest? Russia Moore 06:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, go for it. It has elements of melodrama, for sure. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Lack of citation
I can't seem to find the "Why bother? I know I've got a first" quote being attributed to Oscar Wilde on site but Wikipedia. Also, the wording in "Marriage and Family" make it seem as if Florence Balcome became engaged to Bram Stoker AS A RESULT of Oscar falling in love with her. I find that hard to be true. Shiranweber 31 Dec 2005
 * Sounds to me like the quotation should be removed as uncited. I'll do this. As for Balcome, I don't see any problem with the wording, but feel free to edit if you think you could make it clearer. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wilde and freemasonry
Is it worth including a sub-heading on Wilde's activities as a freemason, rather than just a passing reference in the introduction - I'm prepared to start this section. Escaper7 13:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this MQ article here, Wilde was a active Mason for a very short period of time (a total of 4 years: 1875-79), and was expelled from his lodge for non-payment of dues in 1883. I am not sure if it is appropriate to make a big thing of his membership in the Fraternity.