Talk:Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture

Sourcing claim that offensive nicknames are "not designed as slurs" to be offensive

I thought personal blogs were not considered "encyclopedic" enough for Wikipedia. And yet one is used to source the claim that nicknames calling Oscar Wilde (who had been imprisoned under Britain's offensive anti-gay laws) were not "designed" to be offensive. How can the blogger know this? And even if it were true, why does Wikipedia consider it a matter of encyclopedic interest to repeat the slurs? Nor does it solve the problem that some newspaper conjectures that Wilde would have been amused by them. How could that possibly be known, and why would a newspaper writer have enough knowledge of Wilde to be able to venture an opinion like this? AnthroMimus (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought this complaint might happen, which is why I felt I had to write a disclaimer into the article clarifying they are not malicious names. It's the same way that Dubliners have nicknamed other statues "The floozy in the jaccuzzi" and the "tart with the cart". They are jocular Irish nicknames intended with no malice. Like all situations, context is key. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem that AntroMimus has is not with the nicknames themselves, but that the source that says that the nicknames weren't supposed to be offensive is not a reputable source. It is in fact a singular person's blog. The other source is more reputable, but does not say they weren't designed to be offensive, just that Irish people would tell you "what are you going to do about it." I am sympathetic to the fact that you did not intend to be offensive/off color, but I think it's still a fair point to bring up that a claim made in the article is not backed up by a reputable source. Kmwebber (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

I think going too far in trying to justify the names comes across as editorializing, but some context would help. Would the sources support something like, "... in the tradition of similar irreverent nicknames for other Dublin statues"?--Trystan (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Trystan I very much agree with you. I think that that is an appropriate change that would improve the article and keep the important information in tact. Thank you! Kmwebber (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

@Joe Roe: Inviting you to this discussion as well, based on your edits. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, its inclusion at all strikes me as WP:GRATUITOUS and undue weight given to what local idiots call a work of art, but this rubbish about it not being offensive has to go. I can't read the Sunday Herald article, but unless they have a very good psychic they have no way of knowing what Wilde would have thought about it, and we have no responsibility to repeat baseless, shoddy journalism. – Joe (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@The C of E: Kuriositas is clearly not a reliable source. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the unreliable sources and mind-reading of Wilde's posthumous reaction. @The C of E: Can you please provide the text on page 144 of Dublin English: Evolution and Change that supports the assertion that the homosexual slurs fag and queer are not, in fact, homosexual slurs? That page isn't available on Google Books and I'm unable to access the eBook elsewhere. – Joe (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Joe. I would also like to see the page. It is surprising to me that a claim originally sourced with an unreliable source has somehow magically gotten a "legitimate" source. I am wondering why that was not used in the first place, if it in fact says what it is now claimed to. BTW, that the "locals" call a statue something seems hardly important to me. Unless of course we start including what "locals" have to say about Trump Tower, I don't see it the place of Wikipedia to have it in any event. The fact that there is an edit war gong on right now about this shows that there is some agenda behind keeping the slurs. AnthroMimus (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to track down a copy of the Raymond Hickey book. According to WorldCat the closest physical copy to NYC is 1700 mies away. In other words a copy is not held by the New York Public Library, The Library of Congress, Boston Public Library, Princeton, Columbia, Yale or Harvard. One can order a copy of this 270 pg book from Amazon for $180. Google will sell you access to the ebook for $144. I really think it is the burden of someone claiming this book as authority to give us a quotation of what is cited since evidently this is not the kind of source that is generally available to scholars. AnthroMimus (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Two other points about this sentence. Having read what I could from the preview at Google Books, it doesn't sound like the book would opine on whether the phrases were "tongue in cheek" or whether they are meant as "slurs" in this context. What does it mean to be tongue in cheek? We know that Oscar Wilde was homosexual and that he was imprisoned for it. What is tongue in cheek about calling him a "queer" and a "fag"? I would also be curious if a linguist actually opined that in Dublin those terms are not "slurs". Second, even if the book says it, how could a linguist make such a claim? Did he interview the populace? Does he cite other authority? And even if there were testimony that it was not intended as a slur (for example, by people saying "some of my best friends are fags"), how can that be asserted as authoritative in an encyclopedic (supposedly) work? AnthroMimus (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As the article now stands the "nicknames" section has this sentence. "The statue, in keeping with other statues in Dublin, was given the nicknames ..." What does that mean? Was there an official contest? Or is it the habit of Dubliners to have offensive names for things? There is no source for this assertion. Are we to assume that it's baed on a view of the natural mischievousness of the Irish? I am wondering why the article on Harlem doesn't have some of the colorful nicknames that impish white New Yorkers have had for it over the years. AnthroMimus (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"It has become common practice in Dublin for any new building or structure in the public eye to be given a sassy name almost immediately. Somehow or other the local population comes to agree on the label to be used." I have also discovered a source affirming they are irreverant but not homophobic. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That's on page 143 (which is available on GBooks) and doesn't support the text it's supposed to ("the nicknames were not designed as slurs against homosexuals"). The new source says the complete opposite. Reference to the nicknames is embedded in a discussion of how the statue is a problematic depiction of gay identity in a culture that is still markedly homophobic. It's troubling how many of these citations are evaporating on closer inspection. Did you not read them properly? Or did you not expect us to read them properly? – Joe (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It is inherently subjective that this is not (intentionally?) offensive. Paddy's Wigwam, is an innocent joke to some, ditto all racial/sexual 'jokes'. Pincrete (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It is very troubling to me how cavalierly citations are used on Wikipedia. It's probably the chief reason that Wikipedia cannot be relied on. And since there is no editorial apparatus, there is no reliable cite checking. Because of the anarchic nature of the "content" creation and curation, one person can simply assert that something says something and everyone else, no matter how many, who can see that it does not are left only with an edit war as as remedy. And unless it matters in some deeply personal way, most people give up and just chalk it up to "Forget it, Jake. It's Wikipedia." Surely, at this point it ought to be obvious that there is no authority that can be cited to say that "fag" and "queer" are not "intended" as a slur nor could there be any. How is someone to say that something which is objectively objectionable was not "intended" to be objectionable. There are people who use the N-word who claim they do not intend to be offensive ("After all don't they use it?") The argument that the "intent" is dispositive is really a form of trolling. The only way this should be in an encyclopedia is if there were an article on "The Bigotry of the Irish" or some such piece. AnthroMimus (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with these nicknames is that the local wags think them up when the statue is unveiled, and you can even find 'dubious' references for them, but as someone who lives in Dublin I can tell that they are not in common usage. That, of course, is impossible to prove but it is the truth. Spleodrach (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears that enough people are having trouble with this (myself included) that it should be the subject of a Request for Comment. Amsgearing (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've started the RfC. I think it's useful to ping the previous people involved in this discussion: Spleodrach, AnthroMimus, Pincrete, The C of E, Kmwebber, Trystan, Joe, Another Believer. Apologies if I missed anyone; please add anyone I may have missed. Amsgearing (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies

Should this article be tagged with the WikiProject LGBT studies banner? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. It's unclear why it was removed. The active editors in a WikiProject are the only ones who should be deciding if a topic is no longer of interest to them, and there is clearly a strong LGBT connection to the subject matter here.--Trystan (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think the subject is relevant to the WikiProject. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Medium

Might one or more of the subcategories in Category:Sculptures by medium be applicable? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems several materials were used, but I went ahead and added the category for stone sculpture. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Most of it is stone. Although are the two flanking sculptures in bronze? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. If there are details about the other sculptures, we might create separate sections for organizational purposes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that Smith says they are both made of bronze and granite, so have added. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a category for bronze sculptures, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:LGBT in Ireland ?

Is Category:LGBT in Ireland applicable/appropriate? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. Sarah Smith's Sculpture Journal article provides a very useful examination of why. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

 Added ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes?

I added 2 infoboxes. I'm sure more parameters need to be filed in, but yay or nay on their inclusion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As this isn't a musical sculpture (as far as I know), no objections. But, wow, Constance looks pretty big there. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I made them less wide, and they can be adjusted further as needed. What do you mean re: musical? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

... sincere apologies, it seems you have escaped the infamous infobox wars. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: Now 3 infoboxes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Dionysus

I believe File:Oscar Wilde (29782178444).jpg is the only image at Commons showing the depiction of Dionysus. Should this be added to the article, within or outside an infobox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

All in all, I'd say that photo was an epic fail. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add, so all 3 are pictured, and we can continue to adjust as needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess it could be cropped. Just like Dionysus, I guess it's basically 'armless. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on including sentence with nicknames

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the sentence listing "The Queer with the Leer, The Fag on the Crag and The Quare in the Square" as nicknames for the statue be included in the article? Amsgearing (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No The sourcing for the claim "the statue was given nicknames by Dubliners" is pretty weak, and as such, it seems a clear case of WP:UNDUE. I have little doubt that people in Dublin exist who have used these nicknames, but as AnthroMimus pointed out a year ago, it's hardly a matter of encyclopedic interest to repeat these slurs in this article. Amsgearing (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• No If we had multiple mainstream quality broadsheets reporting, then maybe. But not enough support as far as I can see to keep these. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't like books? I'm a little surprised people are challenging the sourcing here. NickCT (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, although I generally prefer books that have a content and readership pitched slightly higher than the Sunday Sport Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes The sourcing is more than adequate for this point; I'd support trimming back the citations listed. The Smith article alone would be sufficient, and the Smith quote preceding the sentence wouldn't make sense to the reader if the nicknames weren't listed. Whether one considers the nickname to be offensive or not is entirely irrelevant to their inclusion.--Trystan (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree about the irrelevance of the offensiveness. But I'm pretty sure the Daily Mirror shouldn't be there at all (although the link no longer seems to work for me). You may be right about Smith. Incidentally, how often do Dubliners use the word "fag" in that way? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Regretfully, yes. There is a non-trivial body of sources that talk about the nicknames and WP:NOTCENSORED. I think we already reached a satisfactory consensus on this a year ago, with the nicknames being relegated to the barest mention at the bottom of the article (as opposed to their own section and prominent mention in the lead, when the discussion started). – Joe (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes The sourcing is more than sufficient (indeed I have just added one about it from New Zealand!) plus it is in keeping with other Dublin statue articles that feature their humourous nicknames such as The Tart with the Cart and the Floozie in the Jacuzzi. In fact, I get the feeling this is a bit WP:POINTy just because the harmless nicknames include the words fag and queer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Good job! That is a gold-plated source. And you helped the reader by concealing its bibliographic information and just providing a link. Who says that crowd-sourcing an encyclopedic reference will just produce crap? AnthroMimus (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Pointy fags or non-pointy fags, I've deleted the Daily Mirror source that required a HighBeam Research subscription to read it, on the basis that "sourcing is more than adequate" and "sourcing is more than sufficient" and because it's a tabloid. It's not clear, from the freely visible part, how this supports the claim. But if one or more of the nicknames now also needs to be removed, I'd be grateful for someone who has access to check and to do so. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• No. I got involved in this controversy because I questioned whether a single blog post was enough to support the dubious proposition. It clearly was not, but there was a desperate attempt to find any source to save the inclusion of the "common name." As I have explained my thoughts in detail above, I will only conclude that the attempts to provide some respectable cover for this "fact" shows how flimsy the information is. I will finally say that even if there was a gold-plated authority to prove that someone, a few, several (what is being asserted here?) decided to attach an offensive nickname to the statute, how is that piece of information of encyclopedic value? I find it ironic that as editors are now business scouring existing articles to remove supposedly non-notable figures (such as symphony conductors) or enforce their narrow of view of the policy against exccessive detail (by their own lights by the way), there is a dedicated contingent that wants to salvage this bit of folk nonsense. For what? To increase Wikipedia usage by middle school boys? All of the Wiki policies waived to support retention are beside the point. Bureaucratic policies cannot determine what is of encyclopedic nature. But I guess we are far beyond deciding what is useful knowledge in Wikipedia, the source for all things Video Game related and (as here) troll-worthy but much less effort paid to content of important historical and cultural items. AnthroMimus (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I see no policy based reason being used here against inclusion. I would like to point him towards WP:TRIGGERED and WP:IDL, of which appears to be occurring here. Remember Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and de gustibus non est disputandum. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

He's pretty clear that his policy-based reasons are that the information is not of an encyclopedic nature. The only person mentioning WP:NOTCENSORED is you, while I think most other people are focusing on WP:UNDUE: this information is trivial, weakly sourced, and not significant enough to justify including it in an encyclopedia's article. Amsgearing (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• No. The trouble with these silly nicknames is that they are thought up by pub bores after the statue is unveiled, and even enter their into dubious sources, but most of them never enter common usage. I am quite amused by other editors scouring the internet for more sources as if that will prove anything. As someone who has lived in Dublin since before the Oscar Wilde statue was unveiled, I have never heard anyone refer to it as the 'Fag on the crag' or the 'Queer with the leer', both nicknames sound like they were made up by students who hung around the university debating society too much. The 'Quare on the square' at least sounds like a native dubliner would say it (Quare -> dublin pronunciation of the word queer), so in the interest of compromise, I'd suggest removing the first two and leaving just the "Quare" one. Spleodrach (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spleodrach: Aside of the fact they are covered in an academic paper and numerous books? Why should quare be given preference over fag or queer, just asking? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
    • You can keep adding sources till the cows come home, it doesn't change the fact that they are not in common usage. Though obviously I can't prove this! Spleodrach (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• No The sourcing for the claim "the statue was given nicknames by Dubliners" is very weak, one would at least expect some Dublin sources for the inference that these nicknames are anything like common in Dublin/Ireland. Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, but not in lede and with improved sourcingNeutral - I did a brief Google and it seems like multiple RS are available to verify these nicknames. The main standard for inclusion is WP:V and these nicknames seem to hit that. I'd probably put this items way down in the body of the article though. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's a coincidence. Currently, they could not be any lower down, unless they were just a footnote. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: - Ah! Ok. There's perfect. I didn't actually look at the position before making my comment. I just didn't want anyone to stick this stuff in the lead. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

After another pass through the sources, I can really only find 2-3 low to mid quality sources supporting the nicknames. The nicknames probably only barely pass WP:V. I'm changing my vote to Neutral accordingly. NickCT (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• No - It's unencyclopedically trivial information that doesn't help the reader understand the subject of the statue, the statue itself, or the artist who was commissioned to create the statue Danny Osborne. WP:V does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Just because some locals have made a mockery of this statue and Wilde and Osborne in the process, doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow suit. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, as we have reliable sources. The current position and wording are good. I could see genericizing it to say "the statue has been given nicknames by locals" or something to that effect, but ot seems in the local/regional context, the nicknames themselves are relevant. To me, it's not about mocking the statue(s), but documenting how they are perceived/treated. = paul2520 (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• No Nicknames are not relevant to the long-term encyclopedic record. What IS relevant is the sculpture itself, who it commemorates and their historical significance, the artist who produced it, and where it is located. Nicknames are simply tabloid fodder and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Aside of the fact that there are a number of non-tabloid RSs used in the article to support it? Furthermore, as has already been mentioned above we do have precidence of statues having their nicknames in their articles. Please state a policy based reason why it should not be included. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I am not here to argue, but rather to respond to a request to weigh in with my opinion. If we were to include the nicknames for all the public sculptures in NYC, then there would be the "turd in the plaza", "the pissing wall", "the beggar" "that ugly thing in the traffic triangle" and other absurd vernacular nicknames, some more clever than others, all of which are irrelevant to the content, subject, and historical importance of the actual sculptures. With all due respect, if you are correct in your assessment that there is a "precidence (sic) of sculptures having nicknames in their articles", why not start a new article on that? Netherzone (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• No we don't call the Spire of Dublin the "Stiffy on the Liffey", which a tour guide once told me was definitely a nickname for it. I don't see any reason to use these light-hearted nicknames either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• No Although nicknames can be verified in RS, in this instance this is not encyclopedic information and borderlines defamatory. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• @Pincrete: I don't think an academic paper and several other sources is weak. Nevertheless I have just added two more books covering the subject for your perusal. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • We now have the same book written by two different authors? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Forgot that was on there, I guess I just forgot to add the 2nd author a year ago. But still goes to show that you have such a book using the nicknames. Thank you for pointing that out @Martinevans123:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
      • But I also thought people were arguing that "sourcing is more than adequate" and "sourcing is more than sufficient"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
        • It proves nothing! An out of date book using out of date nicknames. The statue of Queen Victoria that once stood outside Leinster House, now in Sydney, was "nicknamed" the "Auld Bitch". I can get a reference for this. Shall I include it in her article? Spleodrach (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Thanks to Mr Joyce, I think you'll find it's already there. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
            • Plus how can the book be out of date when it was only written last year? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
              • I found Chapter 2 particularly enlightening: "Scraping shite off boots with a stick". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC) p.s. Amazon lists it as "The O'Brien Press (24 Oct. 2011)" There's an independent.ie review here.

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.

Smith Quote

With the removal of the nicknames per the above RFC, the article now ends awkwardly with a reference to nicknames that have not previously been mentioned and are not further explained. Would it be preferable to remove mention of them altogether and end the final quote with “... coalesce with our knowledge of his homosexuality.”? Alternatively, we could leave it as is, and trust that the reader will follow up with the cited source if curious about the nicknames.--Trystan (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The ending does not seem awkward. How about leave it as it? Netherzone (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Smith quote in Impact and significance section Comment

The Smith quote and citation has been completely removed from the article, on the grounds that it was written by a non-notable writer in a non-notable journal. Firstly, there are several art historians named Sarah Smith, so it needs to be checked which one wrote the original essay. If it is Sarah Smith the art historian at Glasgow School of Art, she indeed is notable. Secondly, Sculpture Journal is a notable academic journal, (not a magazine, as in trade journal.) It has been in publication since at least 2005, and is published by the Liverpool University Press. We often see it here in the US in university and museum libraries. To my way of thinking, a detailed descriptive text removed without more discussion, is not an improvement to the article. Netherzone (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability doesn't apply to article content, but in terms of due weight, Smith is the highest quality and most in-depth source we have on the sculpture, so it's appropriate to devote a large portion of the article to it. It might be an idea to reduce the length of the direct quotes by incorporating more into the text, but I agree it shouldn't just be removed. – Joe (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)