Talk:John Gray (poet)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

References

Several references were added some time ago by an editor no longer active.

All references point to page 1044 of:

Valentine Cunningham (14 April 2000). The Victorians: An Anthology Of Poetry and Poetics. Wiley. pp. 1044–. ISBN 978-0-631-19916-8.

I do not have the book. It seems unlikely that all the information is on that one page. If someone has the book, can they add page numbers for the facts?--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John as inspiration for Dorian?

Currently the article is dismissive of this suggestion, stating in part:

"In fact, Wilde's story was serialised in Lippincott's Monthly Magazine a year before their relationship began (though allegedly Wilde officially denied any earlier association at Gray's request)."

However, this is not germane at all. Wilde and Gray moved in the same circles; Wilde would surely have known Gray for some time before their 'relationship' started [presumably a sexual liaison is being referenced], and even if he had not, he would undoubtably have known of Gray from mutual acquaintances, so he might easily have based the character on him prior to the relationship itself. I realise this is not referenced, but neither is the argument quoted, which seems like uncited synthesis in Wikipedia's voice. Either the argument should be removed (as irrelevent and uncited) or should be both cited and modified according to the plain logic of the situation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.195.5 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]