Talk:John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry

Lineage

Consider the "Old Man of the Mountain" episode of Mike Tyson Mysteries-episode five of season two. Does Douglas in fact have a Jewish mother?

Conversion

If it's mentioned that he's an atheist shouldn't also his deathbed conversion to Catholicism also be mentioned? JorgeK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.144 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Any alleged conversion to Rome would be questionable - he was cremated and his ashes buried in the family burial ground at Kinmount, as stated in the Complete Peerage and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which mention no conversion. In his lifetime the Catholic Church was against cremation, enshrining rules against it in Canon Law in 1917. (I have added the details to this article, which initially stated though he wrote the poem beginning "When I am dead cremate me" he was buried in Scotland, as if he had not actually been cremated.) No other biography I have seen mention a deathbed conversion, although his mother and a brother did convert to Catholicism in the 1860s.Cloptonson (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I see today a reference to him converting to Catholicism on his deathbed, cited apparently to a work called "Literary Conversions". Is this a publication accessible on the net? If so, it would be helpful if a link could be provided so that this could be scrutinised. The Catholic Church issued a ban on cremation in 1886, later formally incorporated into Canon Law in 1917. I am aware Oscar Wilde DID convert to Catholicism when dying but he had had some intellectual interest in that faith going back a few decades, as his ODNB article testifies.Cloptonson (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Having seen this remain on the page, I still believe this conversion allegation is questionable because of his being cremated when the RC Church was anti-cremation and other information should be sought apart from the Literary Conversions page. The description could too easily have applied to Oscar Wilde's conversion, did the writer of the anecdote mention anything that distinguishes Queensberry from Wilde?Cloptonson (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:REDFLAG, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence: In a surprising turn of events, for a man famed for his atheism and secularism, he apparently confessed his love for Christ and was received into the Catholic Church on his deathbed, at his own request., however, is not extraordinary evidence, but a partisan source. -- Zz (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: *Pearce, Joseph (2006). Literary Converts: Spiritual Inspiration in an Age of Unbelief. Ignatius Press. ISBN 978-1-58617-159-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Untitled

Hmmm... before you decide he's the ninth and not the eighth you should look into the discrepancies in Queensberry (not Queensbury) enumeration. (Specificallly , you are counting James Douglas, styled Earl of Drumlanrig as the third Marquess, but he, as an idiot, never assumed such titles.) Would seem to warrant at least a footnote. --- Someone else 10:27 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You have the advantage on me there. But the current Marquess is listed as the 12th. Mintguy

Yes, on the lists that include the "idiot"... <G> -- Someone else 10:53 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Which includes Burke's.Mintguy

I'm not saying NOT to include him, I'm suggesting that you ought to let people know that the numbers now assigned differed from those they actually used during their lives, at least during the period from 1711 (when James Douglas, who had killed ,spitted and roasted a cookboy before the fire in 1707 was deemed not to be Marquess material) to 1812 decision of the House of Lords regarding the novodamus the second Marquess had obtained in oder to bypass the "Cannibalistic idiot' in the line of succeccsion, but in which he mentioned the Dukedom of Queensberry and failed to mention the Marquessate of Queensberry. So from III marquess to the VII, they were using different numbers than listed here. -- Someone else 11:13 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok I'm just trying to disambiguate all these numerous Dukes and Earls etc.. If you have the detailed information, go ahead and add it. Mintguy

Don't let me stop you, I'm just trying to point out how they're spelled and that the numbers aren't always unambiguous. I'll leave you alone, and I can add explanatory notes to the ones that were known by different numbers once you're done. -- Someone else 11:23 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think you can understand my mistake re:Queensberry/Queensbury, as Queensbury is more familiar as a place name and doing a google seach shows about 45% of sites (including many with genealogies) say Marquess of Queensbury. I also note that you didn't change Lord Alfred Douglas from Queensbury. I had no knowledge of the "idiot" Mintguy

You're right. I erred in not correcting the errors in Alfred Douglas. I am fatally flawed - nay, morally repugnant. -- Someone else 11:37 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Remark about Lord Alfred Douglas

Douglas' efforts to end their relationship

Is this accurate??? I think no but have no sufficient references to delete this sentence. Someone should try to ascertain it.

77.197.248.57 (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

His second wife had their marriage annulled on the grounds of non-consummation of the marriage because of the malformation of his genitals. So were the childre by his first marriage really his? PatGallacher (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The malformation may not have been lifelong but result of later life injury or disease.Cloptonson (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete

The biography - and this article - is incomplete. There is nothing on his bizarre marriages, his life after the Wilde case and his eventual death. I am not qualified to complete it myself nor have the resources to do so but if any Wiki historian is interested, they should be encouraged to do so in order to complete the biography of this most bizarre man. Hubertgrove (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Never Honoured

The introductory line gives him a post-nominal GCVO (Knight Grand Cross Royal Victorian Order). There is no evidence from his contemporary reference books (Burke's, etc) he received any decorations or orders of knighthood. As the Royal Victorian Order, founded 1896, was in the personal gift of his lifelong sovereign, it is highly doubtful Queen Victoria would have found occasion to honour him. I am deleting these spurious initials.Cloptonson (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Dispute With Oscar Wilde

I question the correctness in alleging Queensberry 'publicly called' Wilde a "posing somdomite"(sic), when the epiphet was communicated in the form of the calling card he left at Wilde's club with the writing on it. Were there witnesses to the act? Had he deliberately staged it with viewers to back him up? The writing is disputed for its unclarity, others rendering it "posing as somdomite". I am correcting the month to February, that being when the card was actually delivered.Cloptonson (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150415124722/http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E07EFD61131E433A25750C0A96E9C946195D6CF to http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E07EFD61131E433A25750C0A96E9C946195D6CF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Categorisation

See Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization. "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below – or eponymous). For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". Because the first category (cities) is in the second category (populated places), readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France." I therefore suggest that the article "John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry" need only be placed in "Category:Marquesses of Queensberry", not in both "Category:Marquesses of Queensberry" and "Category:Marquesses in the peerage of Scotland". Because the first category (Marquesses of Queensberry) is in the second category (Category:Marquesses in the peerage of Scotland), readers are already given the information that John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry was a marquess in the peerage of Scotland by him being a Marquess of Queensberry. Alekksandr (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Now done.Alekksandr (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Style/Title

The business card identifies John as the Marquis of Queensbury. How did he come to be known as a Marquess? - knoodelhed (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A heraldic guide I have read states that 'the spelling [of the peerage title] is optional'. Marquis is the French language rooted title, Marquess the anglicisation. For an English language wikipedia may I suggest how it is spelt in the letters patent conferring his peerage.Cloptonson (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde card

Moved from WP:VPM § John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry

In the article on John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry, the infamous card accusing Oscar Wilde is shown.

The article says that it reads: 'posing Somdomite.' With a little squinting, I can almost get that reading. I can also get "Friggin Somdomite,' but I shouldn't mention that.

But with no effort at all, I can read 'Irish Somdomite.' I think this is the correct reading.

I would welcome some discussion before making a change of this kind. Larry Dunn of Bakersfield (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Larry Dunn of Bakersfield, this discussion belongs at Talk:John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry. However, the source cited in the article says to Oscar Wilde posing as sodomite; it later quotes someone saying that card said For Oscar Wilde ponce and somdomite. Please don't change the article to your own interpretation. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed in this response. I had hoped that several people would take a thoughtful look at the card and tell me that I'm wrong. That would be the end of the matter.

The ex cathedra rejection of my reading was somewhat shocking. I remain convinced that "Irish Somdomite" is the phrase used.

[I attempted to show an image of the message in Edwardian Script, as well as the face of the card itself, but the images didn't come through, so interested persons will need to look in the article.]

Larry Dunn of Bakersfield (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Larry Dunn of Bakersfield, I don't see "irish" but as far as the article goes, it's irrelevant what I see or what you see. Schazjmd (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the card. Clearly, we won't all see the same thing. I can see some things, but I can't see "posing."

I can't understand why you believe that a correct reading of the card is irrelevant. Shakespearean scholars are still

arguing over words and letters much older than this. Are they just being silly?

If we were to decide on a new reading, the argument about relevance in the context of the article would have to be dropped, and the article adjusted to match the new understanding. Larry Dunn of Bakersfield (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Larry Dunn of Bakersfield, I don't understand what you mean by If we were to decide on a new reading. Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What if it appeared to us (by which I mean me and you and the other guys), that it actually read "standing as." That I would call a new reading.

The article would then need to reflect the new information. That's what I meant.

One question I would like to ask you: Are we now in a forum, where our conversation can be joined by others?

If we're in a private conversation, then we can't reach anything like a consensus. You can't see what I see, and vice versa.

I had very much hoped to argue this in a forum, in which I could see whether there is any hope for my point of view.

Truly, I do see "Irish," and not much else. Larry Dunn of Bakersfield (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Larry Dunn of Bakersfield, please read the policy on original research. Articles should summarize what reliable published sources say about a topic. Editors' personal "reading" (or thoughts, analysis, interpretation, and so on) have no place in articles.

Yes, our conversation can be joined by others. Nothing published on any Wikipedia page is technically private. We don't have "forums" for discussion; this talk page is the correct place to discuss improvements to this article. For questions that span articles or that need a consensus on policy/guideline application broader than one article or when an article-level discussion is unable to reach consensus, there are project-wide noticeboards. Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

At least so far as is indexed by Google Scholar, nobody has previously interpreted the card as reading "irish sodomite". Wilde's lawyer at the libel trial asserted it read "posing as a sodomite" (Danson 1991, p.982); scholarship has apparently agreed that the card reads "posing somdomite" [sic] since Ellman's 1987 biography of Wilde (Edmonds 2014, n.1). Nor can I find any sources advocating for "standing as". If Larry Dunn of Bakersfield wants to propose that Wilde, his lawyer, and scholarship ever since the trial are all wrong and that Queensberry actually wrote "Irish sodomite" or "standing as a sodomite" then Wikipedia is not the venue for it: as Schazjmd says, Wikipedia's role is to summarise the existing scholarly consensus, not publish original research. It seems pretty clear that the scholarly consensus is in fact that Queensberry wrote "posing". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

(As for my own interpretation, it clearly cannot say "standing", both because the initial letter is completely different from the initial "s" of "sodomite", and because there is absolutely no evidence of the "d" which is very clear in both "Wilde" and "sodomite"; I can see why you might read "Irish" at a glance, but it seems to me that there are just too many letters for that to be a possible reading. Again, for Wikipedia's purposes our own interpretations are pretty irrelevant if scholarship is agreed on "posing", though) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I understand now the distinction between repeating the results of past observations and adding our own.

We can let the subject rest, but I am pretty sure I will always believe the text to be "Irish Somdomite."

Incidentally, in regard to the suggestion that there are too many letters for "Irish," I see the word this way: "I ris h."

Though my side lost, I am grateful for the opportunity to suggest an alternate way of looking at the text. Larry Dunn of Bakersfield (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)