Talk:The Picture of Dorian Gray

message: This article makes provides another poor basis for a legitimate claim: it says, in the Anti-Semitism section:
"These incidents could exist merely to further highlight Dorian's shallow personality, as the descriptions are often concerned with the man's actions, or with what he wears."
That Dorian is shallow is a given, but how is judging a man by his actions shallow? How else ought we to judge a man? By what he doesn't do? The claim, "with what he wears" is perfectly appropriate as a basis for calling Dorian shallow, but "with the man's actions" is not. This needs to be fixed, as I'm sure we can come up with a better basis for calling his Anti-Semitism an example of his shallowness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.255.2 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @NaySay It appears that the antisemitism in the book was previously mentioned in the article, but has since been deleted. I agree. A very noticeable absence to not have so much as a single sentence about it. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-semitism 

message: I have just delisted this article. For some strange reason, this article appeared on the peer review page, so I thought that the editors wanted a peer review. In the process, I discovered that it was GA and should not be. See my peer review here. It explains the problems I see with this page. Also, you might try to find out why your page suddenly appeared in peer review. I didn't look at the dates of the submission until I was done reviewing. Awadewit 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I listed the article in Peer Review. ---Adasta-</strong> 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes me feel better. At least I reviewed a page someone is working on. Oddly, your request is dated 2006. Awadewit 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I must have messed up the process somehow...perhaps I didn't move the second peer review correctly (the last review was the second; this is now the third). ---Adasta-</strong> 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De-listing GA

message: Following my consideration of the anti-Semitism part of the article, I'm suggesting that the Urashima Taro section be deleted as well.  There appears to be no evidence that this tale influenced Wilde (interesting though the suggestion may be), and on the article for the tale itself, there isn't even any information about when the tale has been told and published in English, so there's no basis for me to judge whether it was even possible that Wilde could have been familiar with it.  What makes me especially dubious is the fact that there's an Irish folktale which is quite similar (and involving a person rather than a turtle), which, after all, seems much more likely to have influenced Wilde, if either did; and this tale, though mentioned, bizzarely doesn't get nearly as much attention as Urashima Taro does.  My suggestion would be that the Urashima Taro discussion be deleted, and the Irish folktale discussion expanded, with perhaps a reference to the Japanese version at the end as another example of a similar story. (Eeesh 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urashima Taro 

message: Why is there a separate page on the character of DG, distinct from this page? It makes no sense to me. Shouldn't that one get deleted & anything relevant merged into this? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate page? 

message: "The story is often miscalled The Portrait of Dorian Gray."  It is?  Why is that in the lead paragraph anyway?--Lindsay (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At first blush I don't find this inappropriate; I expect it's so the Cliff Note crowd out there doesn't have to read too unnecessarily far into the article. Mfryc (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to be called the portrait throughout the novel. Perhaps there is some scholarly research on this? I'll look into it. Roseclearfield (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether this remark belongs into the lead is indeed doubtful. It is however true:  "The Portrait of Dorian Gray" site:wikipedia.org</span> and Google News; e.g. "OSCAR WILDE; His Failure and the Nonsense of Art for Art's Sake" by Cecil Chesterton, The New York Times (9 June 1912) PDF: "The Portrait of Dorian Gray has a nasty smell about it, but it is clever" -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good research, Mr Bernarek. Since it was uncited, and someone added a further deformation by calling it a "modernisation" I removed it. Would anyone have a secondary source on this mis-appellation? Otherwise we can just allow intelligent readers to deduce the error for themselves. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching Google's news archive or books throws up many occurrences (another from the NYT, the book Alterity, Identity, Image by Corbey & Leerssen, p. 64). Whether it's worth mentioning in the article, let alone in its lead, is questionable. Maybe a footnote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought it was called 'The Portrait of Dorian Gray', and I think there should be some mention of this in the lead.VenomousConcept (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

text: IMO, the concept of "least surprise" fairly well demands that the incorrect title show up in the lead. At the moment, the alternate title redirects here, so I've bolded it as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it is a mistake. I think perhaps it was published as 'The Portrait' in later editions? (I have no evidence of that)I'm just surmising that as I've always heard it called 'The Portrait' it must've been published under that name at some point. If you search for the book, it is published under that name. VenomousConcept (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Portrait" of Dorian Gray 

message: Shouldn't the lede concentrate on the novel rather than the reaction to it?  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: I have recently expanded Frances Richards (Canadian artist) (also known as Frances Elswood Richards and Frances Richards Rowley). I have found several references to her portrait of Oscar Wilde and of this portrait being the inspiration for The Picture of Dorian Gray. It seems clear that Richards know Wilde, but the story of her portrait inspiring the novel seems less certain. What is the modern critical view on this? Are there any good sources. Does it merit mention in this article? Verbcatcher (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frances Richards 

message: Header says that Dorian Gray redirects here, but there is a separate Dorian Gray (character) page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_Gray_(character). Don't know which way we want to go, but we need to straighten it out. Thank you. Pursuedbybaer (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see there was a discussion above and that there was a recommendation to merge the two. Is that where it stands? Pursuedbybaer (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: According to Wikipedia:No original research, I really don't think we can cite the book for sections like themes and allusions. We need to find good, secondary sources that analyze the book if we want to keep those sections in. 
Toad02 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: Is it really a fantasy novel?  There seems to be one symbolic element of "magical realism" in an otherwise non-genre work of literature.  The text of the article doesn't use the word "fantasy"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: According to encyclopedia Britannica, it is, meaning that it is considered one by some RSs. See this: https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Picture-of-Dorian-Gray-novel-by-Wilde
Gothic fiction is a genre. Dimadick (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantasy novel category? 

message: The lead claims it's a "classic" yet there is only one positive critical response in the modern day recorded in the article. A reoccuring issue in novel articles is the overwhelming selection of negative to positive reviews. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:445B:DE1D:C663:A639 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern critical response 

message: I added a notes section for clarifying information related to 
 in the Shakespeare section (specifically re: Hamlet); I had simply used the quote parameter of the cite book template, but it seemed cumbersome in the reference section. I also think because this work was published in significantly different versions and some of the text may apply only to one, it may make sense to have a notes section generally.
Some redundancy in the references section has me thinking it could also be helpful to implement Notes/Citations/References as demonstrated in the shortened footnotes documentation.
Also, I changed the text summarizing Hamlet for a few reasons (the diff markup below sometimes elides irrelevant changes)
# Dorian 
##  (see note).
# by quoting , 
## Dorian is not quoting Hamlet the character, but rather Claudius (speaking to Laertes)
# impels his potential suitor (Ophelia) to  suicide
## Several characters speculate and even assert that Ophelia's death was a suicide, but it remains speculation throughout the rest of the play, in part because Ophelia appeared mad to everyone who saw her just prior. Gertrude, for example, describes it as accidental (later in the same scene, 4.7).
# [Hamlet] impels Ophelia to suicide, and  her brother (Laertes) to swear mortal revenge.
## This change might have been unnecessary, but the use of "prompt" over extending "impel" felt like it suggested more direct (and possibly additional) action on Hamlet's part, when it was his murder of their father that precipitated both, and when Claudius (in the very scene quoted) induces Laertes to the revenge that kills Hamlet.
 – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 07:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a notes section 

message: — Assignment last updated by Naishakhatani (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: LIT 3319 Contexts

message: The article seems to make no mention of the book's misogyny. That should be corrected for, sources permitting. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Misogyny