Talk:Somdomite

Recently inserted:

"To confuse matters even further, although the version above is generally accepted, there is some doubt about what Queensberry wrote on the card, since his handwriting was virtually unreadable. The doorman at the Albemarle Club though he was describing Wilde as a "ponce"."

Has "doubt' about "somdomite" previously been asserted in print? Is this, as the insertion says, merely "to confuse matters even further"? Who discusses this as an issue? --Wetman 00:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe there is something about this in a recent biography of Wilde, by Richard Ellman or something like that, but I will check. PatGallacher 00:24, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

It's addressed on p. 438 of Ellman's biography (which isn't recent!). Ellman says that the hall porter, Sidney Wright, was unable to read the card, that Wilde probably read it as "To Oscar Wilde, ponce and Somdomite", that Queensberry actually wrote "To Oscar Wilde posing Somdomite" but testified in court that he had written "To Oscar Wilde posing as a Somdomite". - Nunh-huh 00:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There we are. Perhaps you'd enter these tidbits, when you have time and patience. Then we can avoid confusing matters further, as the saying is. --Wetman 02:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, the ponce link is obviously erroneous. --Oop 08:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

---

This article is all very amusing, but most of the amusing bits are opinions. Is this article really necessary? Most of it could go under the Wilde or Queensberry articles. Adam 01:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second Adam's opinion. Dedicating an encyclopedia entry to a specific solecism does not seem quite right to me, all the more as, IMHO, it is a side issue even in the case at hand (the Wilde-Queensberry case). Should every barbarism be considered worth describing and commenting on in itself? --S.Camus 16:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

2007-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 07:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)