Talk:Oscar Wilde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Oscar Wilde has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result November 15, 2004 Peer review Reviewed January 17, 2006 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article (writers)

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Langlit article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

• This article is part of WikiProject Poetry. See that page for further information.
• This article is part of WikiProject Irish literature. See that page for further information.

An event mentioned in this article is a May 24 selected anniversary.

---

Archives /archive 1

Contents 1 Reformed Homosexual? 2 Uncyclopedia? 3 uncyclopedia 4 Uncyclopedia, redux 5 Oscar Wilde at Uncyclopedia.org 6 Is Oscar Wilde Anglo-Irish? 7 Oscar Wilde's name-anagram 8 Merging "Oscar Wilde" With "Wilde's Manuscripts" 9 Give Priority to Literary Works 10 Sub-standard external link? 11 LGBT translation 12 Definition 13 Yet Another Uncyclopedia.org talk

[edit] Reformed Homosexual?

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

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

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

(Welland_R 12:11, 24 January 2007)

[edit] Uncyclopedia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] uncyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Uncyclopedia, redux

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

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

I went ahead and included it!

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

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

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

[edit] Oscar Wilde at Uncyclopedia.org

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

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

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

[edit] Is Oscar Wilde Anglo-Irish?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Oscar Wilde's name-anagram

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

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

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

[edit] Merging "Oscar Wilde" With "Wilde's Manuscripts"

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

Kevin Frank 6:49 PM, November 18, 2006

[edit] Give Priority to Literary Works

A suggestion:

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

Regards Sandy

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

Chhajjusandeep 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Sub-standard external link?

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

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

[edit] LGBT translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Definition

Re:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Yet Another Uncyclopedia.org talk

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

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