Talk:The Taming of the Shrew

Contradiction?

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 agree. After the 17th century is the 18th century. Does anyone know if "in the 17th century" was intended? AndyJones (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gender politics controversy

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)

Here's a vote to keep the existing useful, well-referenced analysis. This play begs one, because it's so damn weird.

If anything, I'd like to see it extended. So far no-one has tackled the aspect that bothers me the most: it's incredibly implausible. How could it be that Katherine - a strong woman whose chief characteristic is that she takes no crap - is turned almost instantly into a slavish robot by a bit of rudeness and humiliation?

Without wishing to minimise the apparent misogyny exhibited by Petruchio, all he does is behave badly at the wedding, prevent her from eating, and snatch back some gifts. Far from being 'tamed', a realistic Kate would have been roused to greater fury. Instead she crumbles, promptly and utterly.

I don't get it. Is there a missing scene, in which the combatants collude to win the final wager? Or was WS pathologically confused about women? --Cdavis999 (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the reason she didn't cave is because she didn't have modern divorce law to fall back onto and realized that further fighting would only lead inevitably to further humiliation and rudeness. 209.112.181.21 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

She was deprived of food, water, and sleep, as well as kept from her family, in a classic torture/brainwashing scenario. It is, alas, plausible. WordwizardW (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a comedy, a lot of implausible things happen in comedies and entertainment in general. For example, now in modern cinema you have skinny 90-pound females beating up multiple male antagonists 3 times their weight. Completely implausible, but it is fictional, entertainment, and misandry is normative in the 21st century.van Lustig (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The Induction

More importantly, it seems to be OCRed and input wholesale. It contains the word "Induction" many times where I believe it is trying to say "Introduction" and much more. I'm going to remove it right now. I think that something along these lines that explain both sides of the controversy around the play probably belongs. But this isn't it, at least in its current form. --mako 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Taming of the Shrew DOES have an "induction". AndyJones 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hunh, so it does. I'd assumed that was a typo, but it seems to be what WS calls it. Well, if it's good enough for Shakespeare ... I'll make the change. rewinn 05:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. In any case, the large body of removed text still does not belong for other reasons mentioned in the thread. --mako 15:13, 10 August 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)

Character list

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)

• It is Done. User:Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 01:10, 5 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)

Tsundere?

I don't think using that term to describe Kate suits this entry.

Copyvio

I have removed the text

The boastful, selfish, mercurial Petruccio is one of the most difficult characters in The Taming Of The Shrew: his behaviour is extremely difficult to decipher, and our interpretation of the play as a whole changes dramatically depending on how we interpret Petruccio’s actions. If he is nothing more than a vain, uncaring, avaricious chauvinist who treats marriage as an act of domination, than the play becomes a dark comedy about the materialism and hunger for power that dictate marriages under the guise of courtly love. If, on the other hand, Petruccio is actually capable of loving Kate and conceives of taming her merely as a way to realize a happy marriage, than the play becomes an examination of the psychology of relationships. A case can be made for either interpretation, but the truth about Petruccio probably lies somewhere in between: he is unabashedly selfish, materialistic, and determined to be his wife’s lord and master, but he also loves her and realizes on some level that domestic harmony (on his terms, of course) would be better for her than her current life as a shrew in Padua. To this extent, Petruccio goes to alarming lengths to impose his mastery on Kate, keeping her tired and hungry for some time after their marriage, but he also insists on expressing this treatment in a language of love, indicating his eagerness for Kate to adapt to her rightful, socially appointed place and his willingness to make their marriage a happy one. Above all, Petruccio is a comic figure, an exaggerated person who continually makes the audience laugh. And though we laugh with Petruccio as he “tames” Kate, we also laugh at him, as we see him satirize the gender inequalities that the plot of The Taming Of The Shrew ultimately upholds.

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)

Untamed shrews formula

Feminists = shrew × 1000

--Evgeni Sergeev 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elizabeth and Richard.jpg

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)

The other play

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)

• I agree that it is very confusing that we mention this in two different sections and seem to reach different conclusions. That needs some work. However, at first glance I don't see the problem you describe. Shakespeare's play is "The Taming of the Shrew", sometimes abbreviated to "The Shrew", and the other play is "The Taming of a Shrew", sometimes abbreviated to "A Shrew". I cannot see anywhere those are used inconsistently, unless you can point me to one? 15:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs)
  • You're absolutely right. I need glasses. :-) 80.161.20.196 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Really?

"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)

I agree, but that particular paragraph is loosely referenced to Aspinall's "The Play and the Critics", with sentences just before and after attributed to that source. So probably it comes from there. I don't have that book, but if someone has access to it, perhaps the statement could be properly referenced. If we can say that Aspinall says that there were dissenting opinions in the 16th century, I'd say that would suffice. We wouldn't need to give examples ourselves, as long as we make it clear that the information comes from Aspinall. Cowardly Lion (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well....here we go again. Just because some sloppy scholar has made a controversial statement, are we obliged just to follow them blindly when, as far as most scholarship tells us, there was actually very little (if any) actual comments made about the plays that are not subject to incredibly diverse interpretations? "People often disagreed" is a pretty strong statement to accept without citing actual examples. What people? How often? Disagreed how? Smatprt (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how stating that someone said something, thereby avoiding making the claim as if it's what we are saying, means following him blindly. You seem to think I disagree with you when I'm actually agreeing with you. I'm perfectly happy with your decision to take out that statement. I'd also have been happy to have left it, but to have made it clear that this is what Aspinall says, not what we say. Cowardly Lion (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - According to the British Library, "there are virtually no records of performances of The Taming of the Shrew". If this is so, then how can "people" hve disagreed about the play's true meaning? Scholars can't even decide whether it was Taming of THE Shrew or Taming of A Shrew that was being discussed or reacted to, since what little records there are generally mention "A" shrew, which as you know is a different work, which (again) scholars disagree over it being a "bad" quarto, early version, different author, same author, etc. See [[3]] Smatprt (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both of you, really, but I support Smatprt's decision to take this out. Without necessary context (who disagreed and what aspect of the thing did they disagree about?) then the statement's pretty meaningless to a reader. AndyJones (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot outline

...is conspicuous by its absence! 90.209.254.107 (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardonnez-moi? BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 02:47, 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)

Introduction

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)

References v. Works Cited

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)

Yeah I agree with this, there is no reason to split them up. If something is quoted from or used in the text, it should go in the 'References' section. Anything else should go in a 'Further Reading' or 'Bibliography' section. I mean, how is it determined what goes in References and what goes in Works Cited? At the moment, it seems totally arbitrary. There's also a mixture of Harvard referencing and endnote referencing. Why? Surely the article should use one and stick to it? Another thing. A critic is mentioned several times (Krims), and page references are given, but the actual work is never cited. Literally, the reference is just (Krims, 32) or (Krims, 216) or whatever. That's useless from a bibliographic point of view. If one of my students did that in an essay I'd nail them to the wall. The exact same thing happens later in relation to a critic called Burns. Who is Burns? To what book is the page reference referring? It's a good article (although some sections need work, such as the 'Date' section, which doesn't actually give any composition dates!), but the referencing is pretty poor. If no one has any objections, I'll clean it up over the next few days. Bertaut (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right: the references in this article are in an appalling state. This might be because Wikipedia permits several citation styles (although, it generally encourages consistency within a single article), one of which does not use inline citation but rather a mere list of works cited at the end; or it might be simple rot, a lot of editors have made changes but none have given the work any direction. In any case, the reason for the split between the References and the full bibliographic details is so that each book can be cited multiple times, on separate pages, without making the References section impossible to navigate. For examples of how this is supposed to work, take a look at Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and The Tempest (or the main William Shakespeare article, for that matter). In any case, please do go ahead: the oft cited be bold certainly applies here! --Xover (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Analysis and Criticism / Themes

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)

No comment on your question, but I thought I'd reply just to explain that "A" isn't the class above "B". The next class up is "GA" (Good Article). "A" is above that. AndyJones (talk) 19:14, 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 agree with your assessment above. The prose reads more like a list of different views then a nice summary of scholarly discourse on the subject. Wrad (talk) 21:28, 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)

Now done same to rest of article--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 21:54, 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)

We haven't really developed one yet. Which one is more common in critical literature? We should probably choose one to use uniformly. Wrad (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)::

It varies between articles and books. Katherina is probably better than Katherine, but referring to her as Kate (or Kate and Katherina in the same article) is acceptable.--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Made changes so Katherina is the usual spelling--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm not sure about pronunciation of the first word. Could anybody make a record, please? --Zik2 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Film Adaptations

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.

Lede image

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)

Now the source has been properly identified (thanks, User:Bertaut) I see that there's also a possible conflict of interest as the picture seems to be from the contributor's own company.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The image was added at my (general) request for images from productions to use for articles where we don't have any good pictures. I think everyone would agree it preferable to use that GFDL/CC picture of John Gielgud carrying away Sarah Siddons (oil on canvas, in a collaboration between Millais and Füseli), but since I for some reason can't locate a copy of that just now… :-) --Xover (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Old Moonraker - FYI - I thought I "properly identified' the source when I added the picture. Following the link to the Forest Theater give tons of info, as did the upload record of the photo, in which I state that I was the creator. There was no attempt as subterfuge if that is what you were implying.

FYI - Adding theatrical production photos from my company was done after a general request by Xover, as noted above, to do exactly that (since I hold the copyright)! (And due to copyright rules here, I imagine it would be pretty hard for any photographer to add work that wasn't their own, unless we are going to be stuck using nothing but images that are quite old and in the public domain). That being said, if there are images that feature more "notable" performers, I certainly have no personal objection to using them. But I suppose that begs the question - as we look for images of plays and characters, what is the determining factor? Notable actors? Quality images? Should the image that represents the play or character itself be valued more than a lessor image that happens to be by a notable artist? Should we only use old paintings and say that modern photos are simply banned? Perhaps we should seek input from Wikiproject:Photography? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree that the image usefully "represents the play" and is better value to the encyclopedia than many of the "old paintings" that frequently decorate articles such as this one. Back to the original point: are there any images from a higher-profile production that could be used? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a good discussion. Are "high-profile" productions the determining factor? Or should the best image prevail? We should probably look at the guidelines on images in this regard. In any case, I have no problem at all if we find a better lede image, and then perhaps move the current one down to the section on performance, which currently only features 2 rather stagnant images from productions of the 1800's! Smatprt (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being too proscriptive here, by applying the same "non-notable" criteria to a picture as I would to a text report of a production. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw this question languishing at WP:PHOTO. I'd say the lede image here is likely to be the best you'll get for some years to come, mainly due to the copyright status of "notable production" images, which (generally speaking) means anything from the 1940s onwards is unlikely to have (a) fallen into the pubic domain or (b) decent image quality. Most later stage/dance photography of any note is held in commercial image libraries & other private collections. You might be able to beg a copy here & there but I'd doubt it... although I would also say an image from a notable performance would be preferable to a high-resolution file, in this case you have a great illustration. Considering the potential for other, similarly useful illustrations from the same source, you also have a large gift horse complete with a decent set of teeth. COI really doesn't come into it unless the author was pushing it against consensus or something & I really don't see that here. Just my 2¢. --mikaul^talk 11:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OK: I promise not to examine too closely any teeth visible in gift images from the PRT back catalog. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

W. H. Auden

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)

No objections: deleting. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

Thanks for the many improvements to a previously deficient article, but a minor quibble: I've added a {{fact}} request to "The Taming of a Shrew...is usually taken to be a reported text of a performance of The Shrew", as many editors dispute this, some listed in "Authorship and The Taming of a Shrew", lower down the page. I believe the statement gives too much weight to that view and should be changed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - some believe A Shrew is an early version by Shakespeare himself, some believe it's a later version (pirated or reported or adapted), while others believe Shakespeare "borrowed" from it. Some scholars don't even believe in the theories of "memorial reconstruction" or "reported" texts. For example:

Alberty Freillerat, in The Composition of Shakespeare’s Plays, suggests that "it is odd that all actor-reporters should make similar mistakes and report inconsistently" and he concludes that the theory of memorial reconstruction is "as disappointing as that of stenographic reconstruction.

And more recently - In Shakespeare: An Anthology of Criticism and Theory, 1945-2000, Paul Werstine asserts that the theory has "yet to be empirically validated with reference to any extant Shakespeare quarto" and "there is no documentary evidence that any actor ever memorially reconstructed a play"

This should definitely be clarified. Smatprt (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. Thank you guys. I see someone has changed the wording to "It is theorized that...". Is that okay now? If not, how about something like "which may be..." Or alternatively, the second half of the sentence could be cut entirely. I just realised it's not overly important where it is. Also, that quote from Werstine is a good one, why not throw it into the article? That would sit nicely with some of the Oliver quotes (although, granted it may be more suited to the bad quarto article. Bertaut (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Section reordering

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)

Thanks for asking. I would recommmend using the FA plays recommendation, since the template at Wikishakepeare was a "suggested" format prior to any of the articles reaching FA. During the FA process it was generally agreed to move the Date and Source sections below the synopsis (for several reasons including the ones you state). Having reponded to this, I think I'll head over to Wikishakespeare and change the suggested format to reflect the later consensus. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for letting me know. This structure makes more sense anyway, so it's all good. Bertaut (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New images

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)

Excessive Red Links

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)

As I created most of those links, I'm happy to trim them back. Thanks for the link, that'll be good to know for future work. As I said prior to working on this, I'm still learning to use Wikipedia from an aesthetic point of view, so any advice is very much appreciated. I'll remove a bunch of them shortly. And for what it's worth, I personally did think having so many red links looked a bit 'off', so I'm glad someone has given me a reason to remove some of them! Incidentally, I assume The Two Gentlemen of Verona and Henry VI, Part 2 have the same problem, so I'll edit them too. Thanks for that. Bertaut (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

February 12 changes

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)

There's definitely enough material for a spin-off article now. At present the The Taming of a Shrew article is a redirect to here, but that title probably doesn't make it easy enough to distinguish sufficiently the two topics. Suggestions? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How about something like 'The Taming of a Shrew (1594 quarto)', and we could put a link to it on the top of the The Shrew page? I agree, the similarity of title is a tricky one. Bertaut (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd be willing to give it a try if nobody else fancies it, but I'm on a wikibreak (half term) right now, so it wouldn't be for a week or so. Very happy to come back and find it completed! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Performance history and adaptations - suggested changes

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)

There is such a gap in the article and your suggestion for a fix looks like a very worthwhile addition. The point about "Performance history" sections is that a reliable source, somewhere, must be available not just to identify a production, but to explain its significance. Haring-Smith's work would satisfy this very well.

If you have any doubts about fitting in with the "house style" and keeping uniformity, one solution would be to add the material in stages, leaving enough time between each release for page watchers to make any necessary tweaks to, for example, the referencing markup.

Good luck!

--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mohntorte. First let me welcome you, and secondly, as a rule of thumb, if you think you can improve an article, go for it! As regards this page, if you are worried about doing anything out of sync, as Moonraker says, there are plenty of people watching, and if you do edit something, you can expect people to tweak it. If you make a syslistic mistake somewhere along the line, don't worry about, someone will correct it pretty fast. Now, as the author of a large portion of this article as a whole, I would like to address some of your points. Okay so, regarding the huge gap in the history of the play being understated, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that. It says the play wasn't performed in its original form for almost 200 years; how much more explicit do you think it should be? I'm not being combative or anything, I'm just wondering what you had in mind. As regards your next point (the Aspinall quote), you're 100% correct. That's pretty much a cock-up on my part, so by all means, fiddle with that as you see fit. Regarding the issue of the ballad opera, I know nothing about opera whatsoever; I saw the word opera, so I put it in the opera section! In terms of the The Cobbler of Prestion, it sounds like maybe a literal switch might be in order - move A Cure to the musical section and The Cobbler to the opera section, and reword/amend accordingly? Obviously, adding the info about Fanny Ayton and J.W.Wallack sounds fine. So all in all, yeah, by all means, nitpick away! If you've any problems, we'll be around. Best of luck. Bertaut (talk) 02:06, 12 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)

Smallish points about the article

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)

Actually, I've been meaning to change the info regarding Kiss Me Kate for some time now, and it kept slipping my mind. If you can provide a source for the info on Daniels' production, I'll make the changes. Bertaut (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Item about modern day critics in the lede

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)

As I noted anywhere, one of the key points of Shakespeare 101 is that Taming has highly (by contemporary standards) misogynist content. It's already well supported in the article, and the forced source in the lede is entirely unnecessary. --Drmargi (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

February 2015

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)

All done. The Taming of the Shrew in performance and The Taming of the Shrew on screen both created and all relevant content moved. Bertaut (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120222053851/http://www.rsc.org.uk/downloads/pdfs/Conall_Morrison_QA.pdf to http://www.rsc.org.uk/downloads/pdfs/Conall_Morrison_QA.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 17:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A phrase regarding “Bad Quarto”

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)

I suspect the main objection is that simply snipping that sentence (fragment) butchers the paragraph and leaves the two references that were attached to it dangling. That is, the main objection, as I understood it, is a technical one: rewrite and adjust citations accordingly and the objections would be obviated.

However, based on my entirely superficial understanding, it seems as if the error you point out could be fixed simply by removing the “early twenty-first centuries” part, since it appears to actually be true for the majority of the 20th century. In which case a more surgical snip would be preferable since we're here describing history rather then the current state of the art. --Xover (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

To say that the sentence was restored "without comment" is simply inaccurate. In any case, Xover has reiterated my reasons for restoring the sentence - to delete content and leave rogue references is sloppy editing. Moving on, I've restored the info and rephrased it based on the suggestion above. As regards the original intention, I can't speak definitively to that end, as I didn't write it, but I would imagine the citations to Oliver and Hodgdon are intended not as examples of scholars who support the Bad Quarto theory in relation to A Shrew, but rather as two scholars who provide a cogent historical overview of the waxing and waning of that theory amongst academics. Five Antonios (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I left the citations in place because they support the ideas that precede them. The citations are fine. I only removed a short phrase. The editors (above) seem to say that a source at the end of a paragraph can be assumed only to support the last few words. And they also seem to say that if anyone removes a phrase from the end of a paragraph but not the citations it’s okay to accuse that editor of “sloppiness!” and “butchery!” (I suspect they’re being a bit rhetorical, or let’s say overly dramatic, and I don’t take it personally. Maybe they’re theater folk.) The phrase “it’s been popular ever since”, was in the article for a long, long time, and not supported by any citation what-so-ever. (See WP:OR) Then last year, as part of a big and helpful effort, an editor added two sources (Oliver and Hodgdon) at the end of the paragraph. Those sources support the ideas in the paragraph— but they don’t support the phrase in question. (We can actually ask the editor who last year added the sources.) When I first read the article with that phrase, it seemed distasteful for Wikipedia to put into the mouths of two respected sources such a tone-deaf phrase about the “popularity” of theories, when, as cited, they never expressed any such concern, and probably would not be caught dead making such a remark in print. The recent change to the phrase still ignores what Hodgdon’s saying, and seems to be an attempt to put lipstick on an bit of original research. Clockchime (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Clockchime: If my use of "butcher" came across as confrontational or as a slur against your editing then my phrasing was sloppy and I apologize. I intended it merely descriptively; an analogy to explain how the change in question might be a problem. I also currently take no position on the factual content of the paragraph in question. I am neither familiar with the theory's popularity, nor with the relevant content of the two cited sources (I don't have them to hand and Google Books/Amazon is being recalcitrant). If you feel that it is inaccurate to say the theory has been popular for some particular time period, or that the cited sources do not support the claim they are being used to support, then that is certainly something that should be discussed and fixed. My suggestion would be to start by explaining in what way the current text is wrong, or how it is out of tune with the cited sources, and then how you think it should best be fixed. That would give Five Antonios a chance to better understand your issue with the text in question, and to suggest alternate solutions that would satisfy both of your concerns. --Xover (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm relatively indifferent as to whether or not the sentence should stay. However, I agree with Five and Xover; if the sentence is removed, the two references should be as well. Bertaut (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The citations at the end of the paragraph are excellent for the paragraph as a whole — things that are in the paragraph are found in the sources. The WP editor that found them helped this article, and without those citations the support for the paragraph is not good enough. The only thing that the sources don’t support is that little made-up phrase at the end. I apparently disagree with everyone on this issue: You all seem to feel the opposite is true: that without that little phrase at the end the sources are left “dangling” with nothing to do. Xover indicates he apparently comes to that conclusion clairvoyantly. And now even Bertaut, of all people, and for whatever reason, is willing to chuck the sources if that phrase goes — a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Clockchime (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Clockchime: Just to clarify: I have come to no conclusions regarding this. I am not familiar with the theory's relative popularity over time and I am not familiar with the two relevant sources (and I don't currently have access to them either). --Xover (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

If I can try to resolve this from my point of view, and suggest what I would consider a reasonable conclusion. My main objection to the phrase in question is that it is not-supported, the two citations that follow it certainly don’t support it, and it appears to be what Wikipedia refers to as “original research”. The original phrase was unsourced when it was added, and the recently edited current wording (according to Five Antonios above) appears to be supported only by a suggestion of our fellow Wikipedia editor Xover, who is not eligible to receive credit in the article. Of the editors who have joined in this discussion, one concern was expressed by Five Antonios who felt that the citations at the end of the paragraph needed the support of the phrase, however, the two citations contain a lot of information and are extremely good sources for all that precedes the phrase. Besides it’s better if citations support content, and not the other way around. My other objection to the phrase is that is doesn’t ring true, it sounds “pop-cultural”, and the “A Shrew” quarto has, in fact, not enjoyed “popularity”, but has possibly had a more torturously interpreted history than any other quarto, a history which Five Antonios points to in his first comment above. So based on all of that, and if nobody seriously objects, I think it is reasonable that the phrase “which remained popular into the latter half of the twentieth century” be deleted. Of course if a source is found to support it, it can easily go back in. Clockchime (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, to assuage Clockchime, and ensure relevance for the citations, I would suggest the offending phrase be changed to something like "although there has always been opposition to the theory" (perhaps something more elegant than that, but along those lines). I would also suggest that the sentence "For much of the remainder of the twentieth century, Alexander's views remained predominant..." further down in this section be removed and the citations to Miller, Irace, MacDonald, Richmond and Jolly be moved up. Thoughts? Five Antonios (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That's sure boomeranged! Yeah, that sounds like a plan to me. Bertaut (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds good. Clockchime (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus and harmony! I approve whole-heartedly! :-) --Xover (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

All done sirrah! Five Antonios (talk) 20:20, 26 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)

Looks grand to me. Bertaut (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it looks very good and well done. Clockchime (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Potential changes in Synopsis and Themes sections

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). I would maybe change her "notorious temper" to notorious extroversion, assertiveness, or willfulness (I.1.69 - page 138). 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

Conall Morrison quote

@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)

The first sentence can be sourced here, but that's about all I've been able to find online (disregarding sources that are most likely just quoting from the article without attribution). I'll continue to look into it over the next week. It will be a shame to lose the quote alright, but it certainly seems like we may have to. Bertaut (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and just to note: I contacted the RSC shortly after this discussion, but have as yet not heard back from them. They do probably have the materials in their archives, or the SBT has them, but it appears there's no way for us to cite them verifiably. --Xover (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Particularly among...?

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)

• In the absence of any responses, I'll just change the sentence to end after "controversy". AndyJones (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)