This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Romanticism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | Romanticism was nominated as a Language and literature good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 2, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 14:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
First, let me apologize that this took me a few days longer to start than I'd said; I've been dealing with some health issues and haven't been doing much serious editing in the meantime.
Overall this is a very strong article. It's wide in scope but distills the important ideas, with abundant but not excessive examples. I'm a literature PhD who's read a fair amount about romanticism, but this explains it more clearly than any text I've previously encountered. Really excellent work.
The biggest issue I see in my initial reading is a lack of citations for matters of critical interpretation and opinion (X is more important than Y, Z is the greatest work of the period, A is the biggest influence on B, etc.); most of these will have to be addressed to fulfill criteria 2b and 2c. I'll give you some initial action points below; once the majority of these are taken care of, we can move along to later sections.
Since this one's been a week without action, I'm closing this review and not promoting to Good Article status at this time. I'd encourage editors of this article to fill in the missing citations and renominate, however; this article is excellent in many respects, and is probably close to Good Article status already. Thanks to everybody for their work! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Romanticism was copied or moved into Romantic literature with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Johnbod, I have just read, among other works, all 500 pages of Professor Andrew Rutherford's Byron: The Critical Heritage, which establishes pretty clearly that, controversial though he was, Byron was still the most popular poet in Europe of his day and long afterward. His satires are an important part of English Romanticism, whether you personally like them or not. I agree with the general statement about satire being looked down upon, but there were a few major exceptions— Thomas Love Peacock was another, though lesser, one—and I can't see how my edit is not perfectly valid. Byron is considered to be a giant of the Romantic period—even Goethe thought he was the best of his peers—as well as a master of satire. -- Alan W ( talk) 04:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
This seem rather opinionated, as well as derogatory to Wales. MFlet1 ( talk) 08:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The section on American literary Romanticism is inadequate. For example, Bryant is only present in a throw-away line. If expanding it would overburden the article, then 'tis time for a separate article. Kdammers ( talk) 08:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Citation needed in Introduction was removed because a cite to the link of Romanticism and nationalism is later provided in the Context section of article. I never understand why people want to load up an introduction with cites when in most cases the introduction is summarizing work that will be extensively detailed and footnoted later. But then, I made an addition to the Introduction and I footnoted it, so what do I know. AB
Tvbarn ( talk) 12:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
In a recent edit summary, User:Johnbod asked "Transvaluation? What's that?" I agree with the deletion of the sentence carrying the phrase transvaluation of values, but it is a legitimate phrase (Umwertung aller Werte) originating with Friedrich Nietzsche. Removal of the sentence is justified by the fact that it did not have sufficient context, as the phrase was being used by a later writer who evidently was assuming his readers to have considerable familiarity with Nietzsche.— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 21:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, with Nietzsche most people are doing well if they can just spell his name correctly ;-) Translated philosophical terms are often very awkward in ordinary English prose, and must always be given ample context. Perhaps the most egregious example is "sublation", where even the German original word, " Aufhebung" is to some degree a self-contradiction. Worse, different philosophers often use the same word in different senses, requiring that different translations be used depending on who the author is. If that phrase had been used in a section that had already amply explained what Nietzsche intended by the word, or was being directed to an audience of professional philosophers, then it might have been an acceptable usage, but not as it stood.— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 00:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm Italian,so I noticed this page has a worth of information about Italian Romanticism,that was also important like English,France and German Romanticism.Authors like Foscolo,Leopardi,the discussion between Madame de stael and Biblioteca Italiana,the period of Risorgimento and so on aren't mentioned,but they had a great influence in the European culture.Please,I'm not so good at English so I can't write more information for you,but these is really a big hole for your page or not so please do somthing about this im very cross or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.188.169 ( talk) 07:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this article beyond any manageable length? There's plenty of room to splitting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laidita ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
True enough. What sub-articles do you propose? Dimadick ( talk) 13:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Yeah, the article should cover a large subject and there's a lot to write, but how many of those viewers came here to look into Portuguese literature or the polish nationalism? Maybe the article should cover more on the broad subject and leave the nuances and specificities to the others. Well, just me 2 cents. Laidita ( talk) 15:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In what sense is James MacPherson really describable as a "Poet"? His medium is prose. Delahays ( talk) 12:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I have just reverted a recent edit that changed a UK spelling variant to its US counterpart. This judg(e)ment was based largely on the consistent use of "theatre" vs. "theater" in the article, but there are some inconsistencies. Words ending in the variants -ize vs -ise are almost exactly balanced, and there is one occurrence each of "color" and "colour(ful)". Perhaps it is time to decide which national variety of English should be used here. What arguments can be brought forward in support of one or the other?— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 23:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romanticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
She is in the section “Romantic authors”. That she most certainly was not, she argued and rejected romanticism in favor of the old more classical style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceplm ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Clearly this page has been vandalized: {{Romanticism (also the Romantic era or the Romantic period) was an artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement that originated in Europe toward the end of the 21st century and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 2000 to 2016.}} 98.224.245.223 ( talk) 19:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Romanticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
What about Vierne, Widor, Franck ? If Finale isn't about as gloriously overwrought Romantic as anything on the planet, what is ? 116.231.75.71 ( talk) 11:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Almost all important Wiki articles put the definition first, then other info, such as history, related issues etc. This is not the case here. The definition is on the second long-sentence, missing on the previews from other articles. I changed the sequence, so that the definition would be first, without other changes to the text, but a user reverted it, disagreeing that "not seeing the improvement". If others, "authorized", agree, please revert it. Otherwise it will remain previewing that "romanticism was an artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement that originated in Europe...". What a definition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.161.69 ( talk) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Few dates for the start of Romanticism "earlier than 1770" in an article that not only mentions but DATES Macpherson's Fingal as 1762? Some clarification needed, surely? Delahays ( talk) 17:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused why the 'Great Britain' section is split into England and Scotland - then the England section goes on at length about Walter Scott, a Scottish writer writing largely about Scotland. Someone who knows this topic needs to either merge the sections or move Scott out of the England section (please!) -- Taras ( talk) 16:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
User:BubbleBabis has added 66k (raw bytes) of text in the last couple of weeks. It is pretty much all about Marxist-Leninist reactions to R, R economics, and German R. It seems well-written, I hope contains no copyvio, but is rather wordy, and with many over-long quotes. Something will have to be done, as the article was already at the limits of acceptable length. I suggest forking some to Romanticism in Germany, Marxist-Leninist views on Romanticism, and perhaps Romanticism and Economics. What do others think (how I wish User:Jerome Kohl was still with us!)? Johnbod ( talk) 00:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is now at 142,063 bytes WP:SIZERULE. I suggest splitting off Literature, which would then allow room for that to be further expanded -or not. Manannan67 ( talk) 16:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
A much clearer distinction between the characteristics of German Sturm und Drang and specifically German Romanticism would be desirable. Motifs such as "romantische Ironie", "progressive Universalpoesie" and "Mischung der Gattungen" and "Sehnsucht" (all at least rudimentary featured in the German article "Romantik") and others are essential to understand German Romanticism, especially in contrast to Sturm und Drang but also in contrast to romantic movements in other countries. 2A02:3035:0:8758:614A:EE84:9F16:DE7C ( talk) 16:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The etymology in this article completely ignores the obvious that any french student is taught from an early age. "Romantic" comes from "Rome Antique" which literally means "Ancient Rome". The author(s) also wrongly assume that the movement refered to medieval beauty and culture exclusively and not at all to the classical era. Well it leaned heavily on ruins from ancient Rome for its aesthetics, at the very least. I suggest some research be made on the French reference book on styles in literature for exemple, namely "Lagarde et Michard" for further reference. I find it disturbing that people might refer to this page and its enclosed information as an accurate depiction/definition of romanticism... Cheers and keep up the good work nonetheless 😊 37.173.158.114 ( talk) 08:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think there could be a few more composers in the music section such as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Ect. There could also be more mention of some of the more famous pieces by them Ex. Musical Moments No. 4 (Rachmaninoff) Isle of the Dead (Rachmaninoff) Etude in D# Minor (Scriabin) Etude in C# Minor (Scriabin) Waltz of the Flowers (Tchaikovsky) Ect. more unknown pieces would also be great though. Hoberspelicea ( talk) 22:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It really needs a section of feminine aspects of Romanticism. scope_creep Talk 15:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
A line in the opening paragraph emphasizes the ‘Pagan’ elements of Romanticism, while immediately in the next sentence also it’s medievalism - I’m not so well versed, but to a layman like me that seems like a contradiction in terms. Wouldn’t ‘Classicism’ be a better term, seeing as that would be referring to the cultural aspect of Pagan cultures? 141.179.103.140 ( talk) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
It's used quite a lot, but it's meaning is not clear. The linked article also does not say.
There's clearly an epistemic quality to it, as it's compared with enlightenment and rationalism, but it's very strange what it's referring to other than "being emotional" which does not seem obviously "medieval" at all.
The suggestion could be that the romantics were opposed to science? But that sounds very odd, and googling it gives the first result challenging that very odd idea. CrickedBack ( talk) 14:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Dlstraughter05 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by DoctorBeee ( talk) 19:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@
JohnBod @
Johnbod I have already had several edits thanked and also positive talkpage messages by a
WP:AFC patroller, no one before the
WP:MASSR has taken issue.
A few things regarding WP:SPLIT:
Romanticism is WP:VA3, and WP:FA's that I've seen are always based on solid WP:SS principles when the topic is that broad. Making Romanticism § Literature long makes it harder to digest in the broader article. A lot is missing to approach WP:FA: Postromanticism, the sublime, debates about industrialization to name a few.
Overarching discussion of the movement is what Romanticism should be in my opinion, every element needs to be "quick, and move on" for the article to be effective. Too much detail on any single subtopic will crowd the rest out. Erroramong ( talk) 08:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I would rather trim than split, especially I'd rather NOT split off the literature, which is the main aspect of R.
There are a raft of "own articles" already - look at the category. Your last sentence is true, but no argument for splitting this.
If you edit boldly, you should not be surprised to be reverted.
I've cut "Some authors cite 16th-century poet Isabella di Morra as an early precursor of Romantic literature. Her lyrics covering themes of isolation and loneliness, which reflected the tragic events of her life, are considered "an impressive prefigurement of Romanticism", [1] differing from the Petrarchist fashion of the time based on the philosophy of love."
It is clear from her article that she was forgotten until 1901, & while she may have been one of various people who can be considered "precursors" of a Romantic sensibility, she had no real influence during the Romantic period. Johnbod ( talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Johnbod ( talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts:
Johnbod ( talk) 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The article Romance (prose fiction) doesn't cover Romance novels.
A romance novel or romantic novel is a genre fiction novel that primary [SIC] focuses on the relationship and romantic love between two people
There is [SIC] second type of romance where the primary focus is on "romance", in the sense of love and marriage.
Jane Austen wrote this type of romance.
Why are all instances of "romanticism" and "romantic" capitalized in this article? In other similar articles (most notably, realism), this doesn't occur. I just want to know what the exception is so I know how to treat other articles covering artistic movements. For context, the Wikipedia style guide for capital letters states: "Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines use lower case unless the name derives from a proper name (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper name (republican, a system of political thought; Republican, a political party)".Thanks! Mr. UnderhiIl ( talk) 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Romanticism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | Romanticism was nominated as a Language and literature good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 2, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 14:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
First, let me apologize that this took me a few days longer to start than I'd said; I've been dealing with some health issues and haven't been doing much serious editing in the meantime.
Overall this is a very strong article. It's wide in scope but distills the important ideas, with abundant but not excessive examples. I'm a literature PhD who's read a fair amount about romanticism, but this explains it more clearly than any text I've previously encountered. Really excellent work.
The biggest issue I see in my initial reading is a lack of citations for matters of critical interpretation and opinion (X is more important than Y, Z is the greatest work of the period, A is the biggest influence on B, etc.); most of these will have to be addressed to fulfill criteria 2b and 2c. I'll give you some initial action points below; once the majority of these are taken care of, we can move along to later sections.
Since this one's been a week without action, I'm closing this review and not promoting to Good Article status at this time. I'd encourage editors of this article to fill in the missing citations and renominate, however; this article is excellent in many respects, and is probably close to Good Article status already. Thanks to everybody for their work! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Romanticism was copied or moved into Romantic literature with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Johnbod, I have just read, among other works, all 500 pages of Professor Andrew Rutherford's Byron: The Critical Heritage, which establishes pretty clearly that, controversial though he was, Byron was still the most popular poet in Europe of his day and long afterward. His satires are an important part of English Romanticism, whether you personally like them or not. I agree with the general statement about satire being looked down upon, but there were a few major exceptions— Thomas Love Peacock was another, though lesser, one—and I can't see how my edit is not perfectly valid. Byron is considered to be a giant of the Romantic period—even Goethe thought he was the best of his peers—as well as a master of satire. -- Alan W ( talk) 04:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
This seem rather opinionated, as well as derogatory to Wales. MFlet1 ( talk) 08:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The section on American literary Romanticism is inadequate. For example, Bryant is only present in a throw-away line. If expanding it would overburden the article, then 'tis time for a separate article. Kdammers ( talk) 08:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Citation needed in Introduction was removed because a cite to the link of Romanticism and nationalism is later provided in the Context section of article. I never understand why people want to load up an introduction with cites when in most cases the introduction is summarizing work that will be extensively detailed and footnoted later. But then, I made an addition to the Introduction and I footnoted it, so what do I know. AB
Tvbarn ( talk) 12:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
In a recent edit summary, User:Johnbod asked "Transvaluation? What's that?" I agree with the deletion of the sentence carrying the phrase transvaluation of values, but it is a legitimate phrase (Umwertung aller Werte) originating with Friedrich Nietzsche. Removal of the sentence is justified by the fact that it did not have sufficient context, as the phrase was being used by a later writer who evidently was assuming his readers to have considerable familiarity with Nietzsche.— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 21:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, with Nietzsche most people are doing well if they can just spell his name correctly ;-) Translated philosophical terms are often very awkward in ordinary English prose, and must always be given ample context. Perhaps the most egregious example is "sublation", where even the German original word, " Aufhebung" is to some degree a self-contradiction. Worse, different philosophers often use the same word in different senses, requiring that different translations be used depending on who the author is. If that phrase had been used in a section that had already amply explained what Nietzsche intended by the word, or was being directed to an audience of professional philosophers, then it might have been an acceptable usage, but not as it stood.— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 00:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm Italian,so I noticed this page has a worth of information about Italian Romanticism,that was also important like English,France and German Romanticism.Authors like Foscolo,Leopardi,the discussion between Madame de stael and Biblioteca Italiana,the period of Risorgimento and so on aren't mentioned,but they had a great influence in the European culture.Please,I'm not so good at English so I can't write more information for you,but these is really a big hole for your page or not so please do somthing about this im very cross or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.188.169 ( talk) 07:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this article beyond any manageable length? There's plenty of room to splitting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laidita ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
True enough. What sub-articles do you propose? Dimadick ( talk) 13:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Yeah, the article should cover a large subject and there's a lot to write, but how many of those viewers came here to look into Portuguese literature or the polish nationalism? Maybe the article should cover more on the broad subject and leave the nuances and specificities to the others. Well, just me 2 cents. Laidita ( talk) 15:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In what sense is James MacPherson really describable as a "Poet"? His medium is prose. Delahays ( talk) 12:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I have just reverted a recent edit that changed a UK spelling variant to its US counterpart. This judg(e)ment was based largely on the consistent use of "theatre" vs. "theater" in the article, but there are some inconsistencies. Words ending in the variants -ize vs -ise are almost exactly balanced, and there is one occurrence each of "color" and "colour(ful)". Perhaps it is time to decide which national variety of English should be used here. What arguments can be brought forward in support of one or the other?— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 23:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romanticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
She is in the section “Romantic authors”. That she most certainly was not, she argued and rejected romanticism in favor of the old more classical style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceplm ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Clearly this page has been vandalized: {{Romanticism (also the Romantic era or the Romantic period) was an artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement that originated in Europe toward the end of the 21st century and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 2000 to 2016.}} 98.224.245.223 ( talk) 19:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Romanticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
What about Vierne, Widor, Franck ? If Finale isn't about as gloriously overwrought Romantic as anything on the planet, what is ? 116.231.75.71 ( talk) 11:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Almost all important Wiki articles put the definition first, then other info, such as history, related issues etc. This is not the case here. The definition is on the second long-sentence, missing on the previews from other articles. I changed the sequence, so that the definition would be first, without other changes to the text, but a user reverted it, disagreeing that "not seeing the improvement". If others, "authorized", agree, please revert it. Otherwise it will remain previewing that "romanticism was an artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement that originated in Europe...". What a definition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.161.69 ( talk) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Few dates for the start of Romanticism "earlier than 1770" in an article that not only mentions but DATES Macpherson's Fingal as 1762? Some clarification needed, surely? Delahays ( talk) 17:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused why the 'Great Britain' section is split into England and Scotland - then the England section goes on at length about Walter Scott, a Scottish writer writing largely about Scotland. Someone who knows this topic needs to either merge the sections or move Scott out of the England section (please!) -- Taras ( talk) 16:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
User:BubbleBabis has added 66k (raw bytes) of text in the last couple of weeks. It is pretty much all about Marxist-Leninist reactions to R, R economics, and German R. It seems well-written, I hope contains no copyvio, but is rather wordy, and with many over-long quotes. Something will have to be done, as the article was already at the limits of acceptable length. I suggest forking some to Romanticism in Germany, Marxist-Leninist views on Romanticism, and perhaps Romanticism and Economics. What do others think (how I wish User:Jerome Kohl was still with us!)? Johnbod ( talk) 00:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is now at 142,063 bytes WP:SIZERULE. I suggest splitting off Literature, which would then allow room for that to be further expanded -or not. Manannan67 ( talk) 16:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
A much clearer distinction between the characteristics of German Sturm und Drang and specifically German Romanticism would be desirable. Motifs such as "romantische Ironie", "progressive Universalpoesie" and "Mischung der Gattungen" and "Sehnsucht" (all at least rudimentary featured in the German article "Romantik") and others are essential to understand German Romanticism, especially in contrast to Sturm und Drang but also in contrast to romantic movements in other countries. 2A02:3035:0:8758:614A:EE84:9F16:DE7C ( talk) 16:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The etymology in this article completely ignores the obvious that any french student is taught from an early age. "Romantic" comes from "Rome Antique" which literally means "Ancient Rome". The author(s) also wrongly assume that the movement refered to medieval beauty and culture exclusively and not at all to the classical era. Well it leaned heavily on ruins from ancient Rome for its aesthetics, at the very least. I suggest some research be made on the French reference book on styles in literature for exemple, namely "Lagarde et Michard" for further reference. I find it disturbing that people might refer to this page and its enclosed information as an accurate depiction/definition of romanticism... Cheers and keep up the good work nonetheless 😊 37.173.158.114 ( talk) 08:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think there could be a few more composers in the music section such as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Ect. There could also be more mention of some of the more famous pieces by them Ex. Musical Moments No. 4 (Rachmaninoff) Isle of the Dead (Rachmaninoff) Etude in D# Minor (Scriabin) Etude in C# Minor (Scriabin) Waltz of the Flowers (Tchaikovsky) Ect. more unknown pieces would also be great though. Hoberspelicea ( talk) 22:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It really needs a section of feminine aspects of Romanticism. scope_creep Talk 15:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
A line in the opening paragraph emphasizes the ‘Pagan’ elements of Romanticism, while immediately in the next sentence also it’s medievalism - I’m not so well versed, but to a layman like me that seems like a contradiction in terms. Wouldn’t ‘Classicism’ be a better term, seeing as that would be referring to the cultural aspect of Pagan cultures? 141.179.103.140 ( talk) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
It's used quite a lot, but it's meaning is not clear. The linked article also does not say.
There's clearly an epistemic quality to it, as it's compared with enlightenment and rationalism, but it's very strange what it's referring to other than "being emotional" which does not seem obviously "medieval" at all.
The suggestion could be that the romantics were opposed to science? But that sounds very odd, and googling it gives the first result challenging that very odd idea. CrickedBack ( talk) 14:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Dlstraughter05 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by DoctorBeee ( talk) 19:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@
JohnBod @
Johnbod I have already had several edits thanked and also positive talkpage messages by a
WP:AFC patroller, no one before the
WP:MASSR has taken issue.
A few things regarding WP:SPLIT:
Romanticism is WP:VA3, and WP:FA's that I've seen are always based on solid WP:SS principles when the topic is that broad. Making Romanticism § Literature long makes it harder to digest in the broader article. A lot is missing to approach WP:FA: Postromanticism, the sublime, debates about industrialization to name a few.
Overarching discussion of the movement is what Romanticism should be in my opinion, every element needs to be "quick, and move on" for the article to be effective. Too much detail on any single subtopic will crowd the rest out. Erroramong ( talk) 08:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I would rather trim than split, especially I'd rather NOT split off the literature, which is the main aspect of R.
There are a raft of "own articles" already - look at the category. Your last sentence is true, but no argument for splitting this.
If you edit boldly, you should not be surprised to be reverted.
I've cut "Some authors cite 16th-century poet Isabella di Morra as an early precursor of Romantic literature. Her lyrics covering themes of isolation and loneliness, which reflected the tragic events of her life, are considered "an impressive prefigurement of Romanticism", [1] differing from the Petrarchist fashion of the time based on the philosophy of love."
It is clear from her article that she was forgotten until 1901, & while she may have been one of various people who can be considered "precursors" of a Romantic sensibility, she had no real influence during the Romantic period. Johnbod ( talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Johnbod ( talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts:
Johnbod ( talk) 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The article Romance (prose fiction) doesn't cover Romance novels.
A romance novel or romantic novel is a genre fiction novel that primary [SIC] focuses on the relationship and romantic love between two people
There is [SIC] second type of romance where the primary focus is on "romance", in the sense of love and marriage.
Jane Austen wrote this type of romance.
Why are all instances of "romanticism" and "romantic" capitalized in this article? In other similar articles (most notably, realism), this doesn't occur. I just want to know what the exception is so I know how to treat other articles covering artistic movements. For context, the Wikipedia style guide for capital letters states: "Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines use lower case unless the name derives from a proper name (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper name (republican, a system of political thought; Republican, a political party)".Thanks! Mr. UnderhiIl ( talk) 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)