Talk:The Happy Prince and Other Tales

Untitled

These stories have been interpreted by current scholarship as conveying a pederastic ethos (as cited in the footnotes), and were written by a writer intimately familiar with the philosophy and practice of pederasty. In what way, then, is this article not relevant to a student of pederasty in Victorian England? Haiduc 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This has gotta be one of the most repugnant cases of WP:UNDUE I've seen in ages.--feline1 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your deletion, as it seems arbitrary. Haiduc (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See above and my response to your post on my talk page.--Jyngyr (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"See above" is not an appropriate response, when "above" is little more than an emotional outburst. And please do not delete my heading. Haiduc (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment I referred to wasn't made by me but another editor. I had nothing to add as what I'd have to say would simply repeat the fact that the text in question is an improper introduction of a fringe view. No reputable publisher would accept the interpretation given of the bird kissing the prince on the lips.--Jyngyr (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We should not accept something simply because it is cited. We must also consider the source. Believe it or not, there are still people out there who argue the earth is flat, the moon landing was a hoax etc. These views are no doubt represented in fringe publications. We shouldn't be accepting them at face value.--Jyngyr (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here. In what way do you consider Naomi Wood and Marvels and Tales to be "fringe?" Haiduc (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is fringe depends on the weight of other scholarship surrounding the subject of the article. In this case, we might look at other scholarship on "The Happy Prince" and see if it discusses the issue. If Wood is the only scholar among thousands to have mentioned the issue, we would conclude that this is a minority view and decide whether it should appear at all. If, contrariwise, most scholars who discuss the work talk about it being pederastic, we might conclude something else. A third possibility might be that there isn't much scholarship on "The Happy Prince" at all. And so on.

There doesn't seem to me to be anything inherently disqualifying about Wood's academic credentials, and so the source deserves a thorough reading on the talk page. Whether or not citing her for this proposition is giving undue weight to a minority opinion depends on the other scholarship surrounding "The Happy Prince". Anyone care to look into this? Nandesuka (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask where you have come up with those criteria? Haiduc (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. WP:UNDUE is crystal clear and well understood:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Emphasis changed from the original, to show where I'm deriving my principles from. My analysis above is an attempt to suggest one way to determine whether Wood's position is in the majority, is a significant minority opinion, or is a viewpoint held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The Happy Prince states that, when alive, he lived in the Palace of Sans-Souci. The real-life inhabitant of Sans-Souci was of course Frederick the Great, whose early same-sex experiences have been the subject of respectable scholarly endeavour. As well as literally signifying a sans-souci upbringing, "without a care", the reference might just as well communicate this second, subtle meaning, for those able to appreciate it. Nuttyskin (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge

I've suggested merging the article The Devoted Friend into this one at Talk:the Devoted Friend. All comments welcome. --Wavehunter (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

related

There is a corresponding page on Japanese Wikipedia https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/幸福な王子 as well as a page regarding a 2003 TV drama titled Koufuku no Ouji ("The Happy Prince") which is loosely based on or inspired by the tale https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/幸福の王子_(テレビドラマ) 172.58.139.179 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)