This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Taming of the Shrew 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 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I cannot make sense of the following:
After the 17th century, The Taming of the Shrew greatly decreased in both popularity and performance, compared to Shakespeare’s other plays. In its rare surfacing, the play was most often an adaptation of Shakespeare’s original. In the 18th century, however, there was a revival of The Taming of the Shrew, as it was once again performed the way Shakespeare had intended.
Either it is contradictory or very poorly phrased given the chronology suggested. Could someone with more knowledge of the subject reword or clarify. Jimg ( talk) 16:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I question whether the extended "Analysis" belongs there. It's fundamentally pov. This play is disturbingly in favor of female submission to the male, just as Titus Andronicus is disturbingly violent. Both may be worthy works of art to be re-interpreted according to contemporary needs, minimizing the submission or the violence, but that at most is a pov that should be part of a "controversy" article, e.g. The Taming of the Shrew Gender Controversy rewinn 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not entirely clear if Shakespeare actually gave his introductory act the title "Induction." The 1992 edition of the Folger Shakespeare Library asserts that the term was most likely added by editors later. [1] 24.239.123.242 04:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've seen people editing this article to change induction to introduction. While the induction serves as an introduction, induction is correct. Please don't change it the article. — mako ( talk• contribs) 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to make a character list, feel free to add and help. User:Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that a page for Katherine would be beneficial. It's interesting that there is a Wikipedia page for Bianca, but not Katherine, the shrew. Lizzycrabtree ( talk) 05:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think using that term to describe Kate suits this entry.
I have removed the text
from the main article. It appears to be copied from [2] verbatim, except the capitalization of the play's name was changed to be incorrect. Pcu123456789 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Feminists = shrew × 1000
-- Evgeni Sergeev 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Where does the story come from? I have read an old story about a young man marrying a brave woman but I don't remember if it was from Decameron or Don Juan Manuel. -- Error 18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Elizabeth and Richard.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused as to the title of the other play mentioned in the article. It is both referred to as The Taming of the Shrew and A Shrew, and in the Authorship section it is referred to as The Taming of the Shrew while Shakespeare's play is called The Shrew. Unless I'm reading it wrong. This should be clarified, yes? 80.161.20.196 ( talk) 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"Just as there are dissenting opinions on the interpretation of Shrew in modern times, people often disagreed on the play’s true meaning in the 16th century." Are there some examples (quotes) we can provide? Seems OR without any. Smatprt ( talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
...is conspicuous by its absence! 90.209.254.107 ( talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I concur there should certainly be an outline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.249.252 ( talk) 04:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the introduction to this page in order to make it more readable and less ambiguous. I have kept the brief summary of the plot but was there never a synopsis section?-- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the article so far; I learned a lot about this play. However, I'm confused about the use of both References and Works Cited. Is there a reason to use both for this article or can they be combined? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Analysis and Criticism" and "Themes" sections of the page read as though they are a slightly altered A-Level / 1st year undergraduate essay . I have been going through slowly fiddling with content, syntax, POV, occasional glaring inaccuracies, etc. but think that the sections could really use a complete overhaul. Anyone fancy giving me hand? There's lots to work with, if presented and phrased rather poorly - would be nice to see the article upgraded to A class in the near future.-- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There I was looking up at the stars; " GA" it is then!-- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just merged all subsections of the LANGUAGE section and done quite a drastic rewrite. Think it flows better without sub-headings etc. I've cut out ambiguous sentences and repeated points and tried to make a little less prolix. Would value a second opinion if anyone fancies it. Cheers -- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've also used a mixture of Kate and Katherine - what is the consensus?-- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 15:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about pronunciation of the first word. Could anybody make a record, please? -- Zik2 ( talk) 13:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Calling "Deliver Us from Eva" an "adaptation" of "Taming of the Shrew" seems like a bit of a stretch. "Inspired by," maybe, but not an adaptation, not even to the extent that "10 Things I Hate About You" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.228.162 ( talk) 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
And I just removed the unsourced statement that "The Quiet Man" is a "Shrew" adaptation, because I just watched it and it very clearly isn't.
Not to disparage the Forest Theater in any way, but are there any higher-profile productions for which a free image is available for use in the lede? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the fact that Auden once played in a school production on topic here? I'm inclined to delete, following the "please be bold in deleting them" recommendation in WP:TOPIC, leaving just the existing reference on his own page. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 06:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, I’m sure some of you were thinking that I’d done a runner, and wasn’t going to do the annotations like I said, but in fact, I’ve just been busy working on the whole article, and as you'll all be able to tell, I've done a lot of work. Originally, I just planned to do the annotations, but when Xover told me I should be bold, I decided to do a little work on the article itself. A little became quite a bit. And quite a bit became a lot. To summarise exactly what I've done: firstly, I fixed the annotations, which were in an even worse state than I thought they were. They're all uniform now, and conform to the type used on the Hamlet and The Tempest pages (as Xover recommended I use). I also fixed several spelling errors and grammatical errors, and I corrected a few critical misquotations. I also fixed a lot of links that went to disambiguation pages rather than where they should have gone, and removed several multiple links to the same page ( commedia dell'arte for example, was linked three times, John Fletcher was linked fouretc). I've also added more quotations from the play itself, as there were hardly any before. And I’ve redistributed the pictures from the gallery throughout the article itself; there just didn’t seem any point in having them all grouped together at the end, when there was bags of room for them in the article proper. As for everything else, although it may look like I’ve just steamrolled the whole article and completely rewritten it in my own words, I haven’t I assure you, I wouldn’t (or couldn't) be that brazen. 90% of what was there when I started is still there. I've just moved it around and added a bunch of stuff (in particular I expanded the sections on Sources and Date, which were both extremely cursory and gave virtually no information). All the stuff in the Themes section about cruelty and gender relations and female submissiveness is all still there, all the stuff about Language and Adaptations and so forth, it’s all still there. I've actually removed very little. But, as I say, I've either moved it, or expanded on it. As such, the article, I think, reads better now as one continuous piece. Reading it before, it felt very choppy. I'm sure many of you will want to do edits on it, which is fine of course. This is the first time I’ve done so much work on a Wikipedia page. Up to now I've really only been doing FAQs on IMDb, so I'm sure there’s plenty of stuff I've done that's completely arseways and can be improved upon. But all in all, I'm happy with how it's turned out, I think we have a decent enough page here now, and so I hope you guys feel that way too. Any feedback, positive or negative, would be welcomed. Bertaut ( talk) 01:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As regards the recent reorganisation of the sections, the article is now no longer laid out the way the standarised template is in the WikiProject Shakespeare, which places 'Sources' and 'Date and Text' above 'Characters'. Looking through the various Shakespeare articles, there's very little confluence of structure between any of them, so obviously nobody is overly pushed about any kind of standardised layout. Which is a shame. For what it's worth, I think Smatprt's reorganisation makes more sense as a structure than the way I had it, as there were references to characters in sections prior to the list of characters. So I think the way it is now is better. But as I say, there are now two templates. So, I was just wondering for future reference (I've also worked on The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which I laid out as per the WikiShakespeare, and will soon be starting on Henry VI, Part 2) which template should I stick to: the FA plays recommendation or the WikiShakespeare recommendation? Bertaut ( talk) 01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
As y'all can see, I added two new images to the article from the Zeffirelli and BBC adaptations, but I'm not 100% sure that they're kosher. I've followed the guidelines closely as regards fair use rationale and whatnot, but as these are the first non public domain images I've uploaded, I'm not sure if everything is okay with them. If not, any advice would be much appreciated. Bertaut ( talk) 02:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What is up with all the red links - especially in the adaptation sections? The TV and Radio sections are simply ridiculous. Are all these people really notable? Will they ever have serious articles written about them? It seems like some serious trimming is in order. Also, [4] should be consulted. Smatprt ( talk) 07:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, so, I see the article is tagged as being too long and what do I do? I increase the length and add a bunch of new material! But I think you’ll agree, the material I’ve added does improve things. Basically, I’ve expanded the ‘Sources’ and ‘Date and text’ sections a little, nothing major. The majority of changes I made were in the ‘Authorship’ section. I know a few people felt that the way I wrote it first time around wasn’t the best, and was too focused on the bad quarto theory (which it was), so I think I’ve corrected that now by introducing a section on the history of theories about the relationship between the two plays and dealing with some of the other theories in as much detail as the bad quarto theory. Perhaps this entire section could be moved to an entry specifically for A Shrew at some stage in the future, but for now, it certainly helps things where it is. As you can tell, I’ve consulted Morris, Thompson and Miller (amongst others) in writing this version. I was hoping to use Hodgdon as well, but I’m not sure when her edition is coming out, so I’ll just wait, and maybe incorporate it down the road. For now though, length issues aside, I think the section is infinitely better than it was. Bertaut ( talk) 01:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I have a few suggested changes for the performance history and adaptation sections. I'm reluctant to go ahead and edit straight off, as a lot of good work has obviously gone into this already, and also because I'm new to the editing process, so I'll post this on talk and make the changes in a couple of days if no one objects.
I'm basing my changes to the performance history on Tori Haring-Smith's "From Farce to Metadrama: A Performance History of The Taming of the Shrew, 1594-1983" (Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1985).
I think the statement "In the later half of the 17th century, performances of "The Shrew" greatly decreased compared to many of Shakespeare's other plays, and when performed the production was often an adaptation of Shakespeare's original" is quite understated - the significant thing about "The Shrew"'s performance history is the enormous hundred-and-eighty year gap in it. It's not clear whether the 1663-4 revival was of "The Shrew" or of "Sauny" (Haring-Smith, p.174). Other than that possible one, there were no productions of "The Shrew" at all in the later half of the 17th century - all the others were of "Sauny".
The statement following that one is misleading: "in the eighteenth century there was a revival of the original text." There may have been a revival of interest in the printed text of Shakespeare in general, but there was no revival of the original "Shrew" on the stage - the "Shrew" was absent from the stage for the entire eighteenth century. The line quoted from Aspinall about praise for Petruchio accumulating rapidly is given in relation to Garrick's "Catherine and Petruchio" adaptation which held the stage in America for the eighteenth century (Haring-Smith, pp.194-196), and shared the British stage with various other adaptations (H-S, pp.174-184).
The statement that the earliest operatic adaptation was Worsdale's ballad opera "A Cure for a Scold" in 1735 is problematic on a couple of points: firstly, treating a ballad opera as an opera is tricky, given that ballad operas are often defined in their reaction against opera. As they use spoken dialogue and songs based on known tunes, maybe ballad opera versions would sit better in the musicals section. In any event, an anonymous ballad opera based on Charles Johnson's adaptation of the Induction, "The Cobler of Preston" was produced in Dublin in 1732, preceding Worsdale's "Cure for a Scold" see http://www.odl.ox.ac.uk/balladoperas/search.php?type=op&task=prnt&offset=0&sub_2=1&venue=bth&id1=1063.
For the 1828 Reynolds opera, it was Fanny Ayton and J.W.Wallack who played the leads (H-S, p.185), not Henry Irving and Ellen Terry as suggested. I think this comes from a misreading of the Oliver reference, which clearly states that it is talking about their 1867 performance of "Catherine and Petruchio".
In the Musicals section, the 1716 "Cobler of Preston" by Charles Johnson was not a musical version. The play text is available in the Eighteenth-Century Texts online collection, and has also been published by Cornmarket Press (1969), and it's clear that it is spoken throughout. However, as mentioned above, a ballad opera version was performed in Dublin in 1732. A musical version (with original music) was performed in 1817 in Drury Lane (H-S p.184), which may be the musical version the article is referring to.
I will go ahead and make amendments in the next couple of days if no-one objects, once I work out what I need to do. I hope this doesn't look like nitpicking, but the "Shrew" adaptations are more important than adaptations of some other Shakespeare plays as there is such a gap in the original play's performance history. Otherwise, I think the article is really good!
Mohntorte ( talk) 06:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Old Moonraker and Bertaut Thanks for the welcome and advice. I think I've worked out what I need to do now, so I'll have a go at it over the weekend. Mohntorte ( talk) 09:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Maurice Daniels' 1961 staging of the play for the Royal Shakespeare Company was a re-working of the John Barton version, rather than a new production.
And "Kiss Me Kate" is not quite a musical based on the play - its characters are performing the play (or possibly a musical version of the plot) and we see some of the scenes they are presenting.
Rogersansom ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
We have an IP hopping WP:SPA from Perth who is challenging a statement in the lede. Since the item is covered in detail in the Themes section IMO we don;t need another ref in the lede. The item is well established by both scholars and critics but if any of you who have this article feel other wise please feel free to update the item as you sit fit. Thanks ahead of time for your input and efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 18:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
So, as everyone can see, I've given the article a bit of an overhaul. The two most significant changes I've made concern references; the format and the amount. I've changed all entries in the bibliography to the cite book/cite journal template, and most references in the article to the sfnp format (or harvp format where appropriate). References not included in the bibliography I've used the standard cite book/cite journal/cite web formats. I've also added a lot of references. Most of this article was written when I was pretty new to Wikipedia, and wouldn't have been as fastidious about referencing as I am now, so basically, pretty much every fact/opinion in the article is backed up. As well as that, I've done some rewriting throughout the article, added some info, removed some info, tidied up some stuff, fixed a couple of errors, added some new images etc. The one thing now is that the article is very long. Personally, I don't have a problem with long articles, but I know the consensus is that very long articles should be broken up. With that said, whilst there is the possibility of doing a Taming of a Shrew article, it wouldn't really help reduce the length of this article, as most of the A Shrew info would have to remain. Similarly, while we could do a Themes in The Taming of the Shrew article, I think the themes section is too integrated into the whole to split it up. As such, I propose two spin off articles - The Taming of the Shrew on screen, which would include everything from both the film and the television sections, and The Taming of the Shrew in performance, which would include everything from the Performance history and the theatrical section of the Adaptations. There are several Shakespearean plays that have their own "on screen" articles, and at least two with an "in performance" article. So, any thoughts? I'll give it a week or so before I do anything regarding the new articles. Bertaut ( talk) 01:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
The Taming of the Shrew. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
From the “Analysis and criticism/Critical history/The relationship with A Shrew/ section I removed this phrase: “which has remained popular into the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.” The statement is not true or accurate. The Arden edition, edited by Barbara Hogden (page 21 - 22) considers the “Bad Quarto” theory not at all being generally or widely accepted by the scholars she discusses, and not by what she calls mainstream studies. She considers and finds apt the idea that “A Shrew” is too original and regular to be a bad quarto. Oliver can’t possibly support this statement regarding the “early twenty-first centuries” since he published in the 20th Century. But also — it’s not there in his book. Oliver doesn’t support it. Both citations appear to be false. The sound of the phrase doesn’t ring true, it sounds like People Magazine writing about frisbees. I assume it is some past editor’s idea, in other words original research. I removed the phrase once before, and the edit was reverted without comment. If anyone wants to put it back in, is there a reason? Clockchime ( talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Five Antonios!
Perhaps Clockchime and Bertaut could take a look at the changes and indicate whether they're happy with them? -- Xover ( talk) 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that Katherina's description in the synopsis can be reworded, specifically the line that reads, "Katherina's temper is notorious and it is thought no man would ever wish to marry her." I think the "it is thought" part is too broad and could point directly to quotes from characters such as Gremio in Act 1, Scene 2 of the play. I also think "temper" is not the right word because most of the characters in the play say that she is too "rough" or disorderly ("to cart her rather," I.1.55 - page 137). [1] I would maybe change her "notorious temper" to notorious extroversion, assertiveness, or willfulness (I.1.69 - page 138). [2] HalM03 ( talk) 04:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I also think that another theme can be added. On one hand, characters such as Lucentio, Hortensio, Tranio, and Petruchio change their social identities/realities with clothing. On the other hand, Christopher Sly and Katherina change their social identities/realities due to the persuasion/actions of others (Sly a "Lord" and Katherina a wife). The added theme can address whether people can change their social identity as a result of choice or coercion. HalM03 ( talk) 04:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Seraphimblade: (not pinging the other recent participants here, but would obviously welcome others' input on the issue)
Regarding
my removal, and Seraphimblade's
subsequent restoration, of the (web) citation supporting the Conall Morrison quote in the "Controversy" section. I removed the cite not because it contained a dead link, but because it is a cite to a web source with a dead link for which several attempts over a long time (it's been several years since I first looked into it) have failed to turn up an alternate source or archive. That is, the problem isn't the dead link per se, but rather that the content fails
WP:V (and quoting Morrison on a controversial issue it actually falls under
WP:BLP as well, though that was not my main concern). My replacement of the cite with a {{
cn}}
tag was as a last ditch attempt to save the quote, by encouraging someone else to come up with a cite for it. Because the alternative is to remove the entire quote outright (per
WP:DEADREF which is the guideline for how to apply the
WP:V policy to this situation). --
Xover (
talk) 19:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we do something about the sentence in the lede that ends "[something] ...has become the subject of considerable controversy, particularly among modern scholars, audiences, and readers." Particularly among those as distinct from whom? People who don't know anything about it, haven't seen it and haven't read it? Weasels, ferrets and stoats? It just seems a bit redundant. AndyJones ( talk) 19:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Taming of the Shrew 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 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I cannot make sense of the following:
After the 17th century, The Taming of the Shrew greatly decreased in both popularity and performance, compared to Shakespeare’s other plays. In its rare surfacing, the play was most often an adaptation of Shakespeare’s original. In the 18th century, however, there was a revival of The Taming of the Shrew, as it was once again performed the way Shakespeare had intended.
Either it is contradictory or very poorly phrased given the chronology suggested. Could someone with more knowledge of the subject reword or clarify. Jimg ( talk) 16:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I question whether the extended "Analysis" belongs there. It's fundamentally pov. This play is disturbingly in favor of female submission to the male, just as Titus Andronicus is disturbingly violent. Both may be worthy works of art to be re-interpreted according to contemporary needs, minimizing the submission or the violence, but that at most is a pov that should be part of a "controversy" article, e.g. The Taming of the Shrew Gender Controversy rewinn 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not entirely clear if Shakespeare actually gave his introductory act the title "Induction." The 1992 edition of the Folger Shakespeare Library asserts that the term was most likely added by editors later. [1] 24.239.123.242 04:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've seen people editing this article to change induction to introduction. While the induction serves as an introduction, induction is correct. Please don't change it the article. — mako ( talk• contribs) 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to make a character list, feel free to add and help. User:Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that a page for Katherine would be beneficial. It's interesting that there is a Wikipedia page for Bianca, but not Katherine, the shrew. Lizzycrabtree ( talk) 05:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think using that term to describe Kate suits this entry.
I have removed the text
from the main article. It appears to be copied from [2] verbatim, except the capitalization of the play's name was changed to be incorrect. Pcu123456789 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Feminists = shrew × 1000
-- Evgeni Sergeev 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Where does the story come from? I have read an old story about a young man marrying a brave woman but I don't remember if it was from Decameron or Don Juan Manuel. -- Error 18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Elizabeth and Richard.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused as to the title of the other play mentioned in the article. It is both referred to as The Taming of the Shrew and A Shrew, and in the Authorship section it is referred to as The Taming of the Shrew while Shakespeare's play is called The Shrew. Unless I'm reading it wrong. This should be clarified, yes? 80.161.20.196 ( talk) 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"Just as there are dissenting opinions on the interpretation of Shrew in modern times, people often disagreed on the play’s true meaning in the 16th century." Are there some examples (quotes) we can provide? Seems OR without any. Smatprt ( talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
...is conspicuous by its absence! 90.209.254.107 ( talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I concur there should certainly be an outline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.249.252 ( talk) 04:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the introduction to this page in order to make it more readable and less ambiguous. I have kept the brief summary of the plot but was there never a synopsis section?-- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the article so far; I learned a lot about this play. However, I'm confused about the use of both References and Works Cited. Is there a reason to use both for this article or can they be combined? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Analysis and Criticism" and "Themes" sections of the page read as though they are a slightly altered A-Level / 1st year undergraduate essay . I have been going through slowly fiddling with content, syntax, POV, occasional glaring inaccuracies, etc. but think that the sections could really use a complete overhaul. Anyone fancy giving me hand? There's lots to work with, if presented and phrased rather poorly - would be nice to see the article upgraded to A class in the near future.-- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There I was looking up at the stars; " GA" it is then!-- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just merged all subsections of the LANGUAGE section and done quite a drastic rewrite. Think it flows better without sub-headings etc. I've cut out ambiguous sentences and repeated points and tried to make a little less prolix. Would value a second opinion if anyone fancies it. Cheers -- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've also used a mixture of Kate and Katherine - what is the consensus?-- Septemberfourth476 ( talk) 15:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about pronunciation of the first word. Could anybody make a record, please? -- Zik2 ( talk) 13:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Calling "Deliver Us from Eva" an "adaptation" of "Taming of the Shrew" seems like a bit of a stretch. "Inspired by," maybe, but not an adaptation, not even to the extent that "10 Things I Hate About You" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.228.162 ( talk) 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
And I just removed the unsourced statement that "The Quiet Man" is a "Shrew" adaptation, because I just watched it and it very clearly isn't.
Not to disparage the Forest Theater in any way, but are there any higher-profile productions for which a free image is available for use in the lede? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the fact that Auden once played in a school production on topic here? I'm inclined to delete, following the "please be bold in deleting them" recommendation in WP:TOPIC, leaving just the existing reference on his own page. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 06:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, I’m sure some of you were thinking that I’d done a runner, and wasn’t going to do the annotations like I said, but in fact, I’ve just been busy working on the whole article, and as you'll all be able to tell, I've done a lot of work. Originally, I just planned to do the annotations, but when Xover told me I should be bold, I decided to do a little work on the article itself. A little became quite a bit. And quite a bit became a lot. To summarise exactly what I've done: firstly, I fixed the annotations, which were in an even worse state than I thought they were. They're all uniform now, and conform to the type used on the Hamlet and The Tempest pages (as Xover recommended I use). I also fixed several spelling errors and grammatical errors, and I corrected a few critical misquotations. I also fixed a lot of links that went to disambiguation pages rather than where they should have gone, and removed several multiple links to the same page ( commedia dell'arte for example, was linked three times, John Fletcher was linked fouretc). I've also added more quotations from the play itself, as there were hardly any before. And I’ve redistributed the pictures from the gallery throughout the article itself; there just didn’t seem any point in having them all grouped together at the end, when there was bags of room for them in the article proper. As for everything else, although it may look like I’ve just steamrolled the whole article and completely rewritten it in my own words, I haven’t I assure you, I wouldn’t (or couldn't) be that brazen. 90% of what was there when I started is still there. I've just moved it around and added a bunch of stuff (in particular I expanded the sections on Sources and Date, which were both extremely cursory and gave virtually no information). All the stuff in the Themes section about cruelty and gender relations and female submissiveness is all still there, all the stuff about Language and Adaptations and so forth, it’s all still there. I've actually removed very little. But, as I say, I've either moved it, or expanded on it. As such, the article, I think, reads better now as one continuous piece. Reading it before, it felt very choppy. I'm sure many of you will want to do edits on it, which is fine of course. This is the first time I’ve done so much work on a Wikipedia page. Up to now I've really only been doing FAQs on IMDb, so I'm sure there’s plenty of stuff I've done that's completely arseways and can be improved upon. But all in all, I'm happy with how it's turned out, I think we have a decent enough page here now, and so I hope you guys feel that way too. Any feedback, positive or negative, would be welcomed. Bertaut ( talk) 01:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As regards the recent reorganisation of the sections, the article is now no longer laid out the way the standarised template is in the WikiProject Shakespeare, which places 'Sources' and 'Date and Text' above 'Characters'. Looking through the various Shakespeare articles, there's very little confluence of structure between any of them, so obviously nobody is overly pushed about any kind of standardised layout. Which is a shame. For what it's worth, I think Smatprt's reorganisation makes more sense as a structure than the way I had it, as there were references to characters in sections prior to the list of characters. So I think the way it is now is better. But as I say, there are now two templates. So, I was just wondering for future reference (I've also worked on The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which I laid out as per the WikiShakespeare, and will soon be starting on Henry VI, Part 2) which template should I stick to: the FA plays recommendation or the WikiShakespeare recommendation? Bertaut ( talk) 01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
As y'all can see, I added two new images to the article from the Zeffirelli and BBC adaptations, but I'm not 100% sure that they're kosher. I've followed the guidelines closely as regards fair use rationale and whatnot, but as these are the first non public domain images I've uploaded, I'm not sure if everything is okay with them. If not, any advice would be much appreciated. Bertaut ( talk) 02:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What is up with all the red links - especially in the adaptation sections? The TV and Radio sections are simply ridiculous. Are all these people really notable? Will they ever have serious articles written about them? It seems like some serious trimming is in order. Also, [4] should be consulted. Smatprt ( talk) 07:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, so, I see the article is tagged as being too long and what do I do? I increase the length and add a bunch of new material! But I think you’ll agree, the material I’ve added does improve things. Basically, I’ve expanded the ‘Sources’ and ‘Date and text’ sections a little, nothing major. The majority of changes I made were in the ‘Authorship’ section. I know a few people felt that the way I wrote it first time around wasn’t the best, and was too focused on the bad quarto theory (which it was), so I think I’ve corrected that now by introducing a section on the history of theories about the relationship between the two plays and dealing with some of the other theories in as much detail as the bad quarto theory. Perhaps this entire section could be moved to an entry specifically for A Shrew at some stage in the future, but for now, it certainly helps things where it is. As you can tell, I’ve consulted Morris, Thompson and Miller (amongst others) in writing this version. I was hoping to use Hodgdon as well, but I’m not sure when her edition is coming out, so I’ll just wait, and maybe incorporate it down the road. For now though, length issues aside, I think the section is infinitely better than it was. Bertaut ( talk) 01:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I have a few suggested changes for the performance history and adaptation sections. I'm reluctant to go ahead and edit straight off, as a lot of good work has obviously gone into this already, and also because I'm new to the editing process, so I'll post this on talk and make the changes in a couple of days if no one objects.
I'm basing my changes to the performance history on Tori Haring-Smith's "From Farce to Metadrama: A Performance History of The Taming of the Shrew, 1594-1983" (Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1985).
I think the statement "In the later half of the 17th century, performances of "The Shrew" greatly decreased compared to many of Shakespeare's other plays, and when performed the production was often an adaptation of Shakespeare's original" is quite understated - the significant thing about "The Shrew"'s performance history is the enormous hundred-and-eighty year gap in it. It's not clear whether the 1663-4 revival was of "The Shrew" or of "Sauny" (Haring-Smith, p.174). Other than that possible one, there were no productions of "The Shrew" at all in the later half of the 17th century - all the others were of "Sauny".
The statement following that one is misleading: "in the eighteenth century there was a revival of the original text." There may have been a revival of interest in the printed text of Shakespeare in general, but there was no revival of the original "Shrew" on the stage - the "Shrew" was absent from the stage for the entire eighteenth century. The line quoted from Aspinall about praise for Petruchio accumulating rapidly is given in relation to Garrick's "Catherine and Petruchio" adaptation which held the stage in America for the eighteenth century (Haring-Smith, pp.194-196), and shared the British stage with various other adaptations (H-S, pp.174-184).
The statement that the earliest operatic adaptation was Worsdale's ballad opera "A Cure for a Scold" in 1735 is problematic on a couple of points: firstly, treating a ballad opera as an opera is tricky, given that ballad operas are often defined in their reaction against opera. As they use spoken dialogue and songs based on known tunes, maybe ballad opera versions would sit better in the musicals section. In any event, an anonymous ballad opera based on Charles Johnson's adaptation of the Induction, "The Cobler of Preston" was produced in Dublin in 1732, preceding Worsdale's "Cure for a Scold" see http://www.odl.ox.ac.uk/balladoperas/search.php?type=op&task=prnt&offset=0&sub_2=1&venue=bth&id1=1063.
For the 1828 Reynolds opera, it was Fanny Ayton and J.W.Wallack who played the leads (H-S, p.185), not Henry Irving and Ellen Terry as suggested. I think this comes from a misreading of the Oliver reference, which clearly states that it is talking about their 1867 performance of "Catherine and Petruchio".
In the Musicals section, the 1716 "Cobler of Preston" by Charles Johnson was not a musical version. The play text is available in the Eighteenth-Century Texts online collection, and has also been published by Cornmarket Press (1969), and it's clear that it is spoken throughout. However, as mentioned above, a ballad opera version was performed in Dublin in 1732. A musical version (with original music) was performed in 1817 in Drury Lane (H-S p.184), which may be the musical version the article is referring to.
I will go ahead and make amendments in the next couple of days if no-one objects, once I work out what I need to do. I hope this doesn't look like nitpicking, but the "Shrew" adaptations are more important than adaptations of some other Shakespeare plays as there is such a gap in the original play's performance history. Otherwise, I think the article is really good!
Mohntorte ( talk) 06:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Old Moonraker and Bertaut Thanks for the welcome and advice. I think I've worked out what I need to do now, so I'll have a go at it over the weekend. Mohntorte ( talk) 09:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Maurice Daniels' 1961 staging of the play for the Royal Shakespeare Company was a re-working of the John Barton version, rather than a new production.
And "Kiss Me Kate" is not quite a musical based on the play - its characters are performing the play (or possibly a musical version of the plot) and we see some of the scenes they are presenting.
Rogersansom ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
We have an IP hopping WP:SPA from Perth who is challenging a statement in the lede. Since the item is covered in detail in the Themes section IMO we don;t need another ref in the lede. The item is well established by both scholars and critics but if any of you who have this article feel other wise please feel free to update the item as you sit fit. Thanks ahead of time for your input and efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 18:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
So, as everyone can see, I've given the article a bit of an overhaul. The two most significant changes I've made concern references; the format and the amount. I've changed all entries in the bibliography to the cite book/cite journal template, and most references in the article to the sfnp format (or harvp format where appropriate). References not included in the bibliography I've used the standard cite book/cite journal/cite web formats. I've also added a lot of references. Most of this article was written when I was pretty new to Wikipedia, and wouldn't have been as fastidious about referencing as I am now, so basically, pretty much every fact/opinion in the article is backed up. As well as that, I've done some rewriting throughout the article, added some info, removed some info, tidied up some stuff, fixed a couple of errors, added some new images etc. The one thing now is that the article is very long. Personally, I don't have a problem with long articles, but I know the consensus is that very long articles should be broken up. With that said, whilst there is the possibility of doing a Taming of a Shrew article, it wouldn't really help reduce the length of this article, as most of the A Shrew info would have to remain. Similarly, while we could do a Themes in The Taming of the Shrew article, I think the themes section is too integrated into the whole to split it up. As such, I propose two spin off articles - The Taming of the Shrew on screen, which would include everything from both the film and the television sections, and The Taming of the Shrew in performance, which would include everything from the Performance history and the theatrical section of the Adaptations. There are several Shakespearean plays that have their own "on screen" articles, and at least two with an "in performance" article. So, any thoughts? I'll give it a week or so before I do anything regarding the new articles. Bertaut ( talk) 01:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
The Taming of the Shrew. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
From the “Analysis and criticism/Critical history/The relationship with A Shrew/ section I removed this phrase: “which has remained popular into the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.” The statement is not true or accurate. The Arden edition, edited by Barbara Hogden (page 21 - 22) considers the “Bad Quarto” theory not at all being generally or widely accepted by the scholars she discusses, and not by what she calls mainstream studies. She considers and finds apt the idea that “A Shrew” is too original and regular to be a bad quarto. Oliver can’t possibly support this statement regarding the “early twenty-first centuries” since he published in the 20th Century. But also — it’s not there in his book. Oliver doesn’t support it. Both citations appear to be false. The sound of the phrase doesn’t ring true, it sounds like People Magazine writing about frisbees. I assume it is some past editor’s idea, in other words original research. I removed the phrase once before, and the edit was reverted without comment. If anyone wants to put it back in, is there a reason? Clockchime ( talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Five Antonios!
Perhaps Clockchime and Bertaut could take a look at the changes and indicate whether they're happy with them? -- Xover ( talk) 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that Katherina's description in the synopsis can be reworded, specifically the line that reads, "Katherina's temper is notorious and it is thought no man would ever wish to marry her." I think the "it is thought" part is too broad and could point directly to quotes from characters such as Gremio in Act 1, Scene 2 of the play. I also think "temper" is not the right word because most of the characters in the play say that she is too "rough" or disorderly ("to cart her rather," I.1.55 - page 137). [1] I would maybe change her "notorious temper" to notorious extroversion, assertiveness, or willfulness (I.1.69 - page 138). [2] HalM03 ( talk) 04:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I also think that another theme can be added. On one hand, characters such as Lucentio, Hortensio, Tranio, and Petruchio change their social identities/realities with clothing. On the other hand, Christopher Sly and Katherina change their social identities/realities due to the persuasion/actions of others (Sly a "Lord" and Katherina a wife). The added theme can address whether people can change their social identity as a result of choice or coercion. HalM03 ( talk) 04:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Seraphimblade: (not pinging the other recent participants here, but would obviously welcome others' input on the issue)
Regarding
my removal, and Seraphimblade's
subsequent restoration, of the (web) citation supporting the Conall Morrison quote in the "Controversy" section. I removed the cite not because it contained a dead link, but because it is a cite to a web source with a dead link for which several attempts over a long time (it's been several years since I first looked into it) have failed to turn up an alternate source or archive. That is, the problem isn't the dead link per se, but rather that the content fails
WP:V (and quoting Morrison on a controversial issue it actually falls under
WP:BLP as well, though that was not my main concern). My replacement of the cite with a {{
cn}}
tag was as a last ditch attempt to save the quote, by encouraging someone else to come up with a cite for it. Because the alternative is to remove the entire quote outright (per
WP:DEADREF which is the guideline for how to apply the
WP:V policy to this situation). --
Xover (
talk) 19:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we do something about the sentence in the lede that ends "[something] ...has become the subject of considerable controversy, particularly among modern scholars, audiences, and readers." Particularly among those as distinct from whom? People who don't know anything about it, haven't seen it and haven't read it? Weasels, ferrets and stoats? It just seems a bit redundant. AndyJones ( talk) 19:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)