Talk:The Tempest

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 11 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Supad808.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

purpose of abstract

The first part of the article/the abstract should say why the article is important, what role The Tempest plays in the world. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.10 (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the fourth paragraph in the lead includes "in the 20th century, critics and scholars undertook a significant re-appraisal of the play's value, to the extent that it is now considered to be one of Shakespeare's greatest works." See also the Afterlife section near the end of the article. --GuillaumeTell 11:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Introductory text is inconsistent with feminist criticism section. According to intro, "Because of the small role that women play in the story, The Tempest has not attracted much feminist analysis." According to feminist criticism section, "Because of the small role women play in the story in comparison to other Shakespeare plays, The Tempest has attracted much feminist criticism." These statements are contradictory.144.174.255.103 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"Further Reading" Section

User:Tom Reedy Why were these cites and this one deleted? These articles are published in mainstream Shakespearean journals and the book is published by an established publisher. Knitwitted (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to ask these questions on your user talk page; I'm not going to chase you around WP to answer a question you already know the answer to. I suggest you read WP:RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oxfordian Authorship stuff added by Aodhdubh

user:Aodhdubh has added some information about the position of The Tempest within the Oxfordian argument that William Shakespeare was not, in fact, the author of most/all of the work normally attributed to him. Not being an expert in the area, I'm hesitant to revert, but is the Oxfordian authorship theory not considered WP:FRINGE, and thus should probably be avoided here (from the Talk archives it looks like this was discussed fairly extensively in the past, in addition there is a large article, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, dedicated to the subject). Second, the addition includes "The connection between the play and the 1609 wreck at Bermuda of the Virginia Company's flagship, the Sea Venture (see below), has made it a primary target of proponents of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship as it enables the writing of the play to be firmly dated between September, 1610 and the play's first performance at court on the 1st of November, 1611 (making it impossible that it could have been written, as theorists propose, by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who died in 1604)." As written this is (at least) confusing. As written it would seem that the dates would make it a likely target for the opponents of the Oxfordian theory. Alternatively this may be intended to mean that the dates make The Tempest at target of the proponents of the Oxfordian theory, in the sense that the play is to be removed from the canon. Rwessel (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the edit and couldn't quite make out what it was saying. Per WP:ONEWAY I suspect Oxfordian theories should not be mentioned here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Oxfordian theory might not have rated mention a few years ago, but since it was pushed firmly into the public consciousness in 2011 by the film "Anonymous, and numerous articles in reputable media, not mentioning the critical importance of this particular play in relation to that theory (and redirecting those interested in reading further to the appropriate Wikipedia article) would be a grave omission. As far as it being confusing whether the connection between the 1609 wrecking of the Sea Venture and the play would be attacked by proponents or opponents of the Oxfordian theory, it should be clear that, as the connection enables the date of the writing of the play to be established as between 1610 and 1611...and de Vere (Oxford) died in 1604, it would be the proponents of the Oxfordian theory who would attack the connection between the play and the Sea Venture. Aodhdubh (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the sentence about the being target of the proponents needs to be clarified, it is confusing as written. Just being popularized is not necessarily enough to make the theory non-fringe, consider the popularization of the end-of-the-world-in-2012 "theory" by the eponymous movie, not to mention numerous other references in nominally serious media. Unless something has changed (and I'm certainly not an expert on the subject), this has always been, and remains, a fringe theory, thus deserving of minimal mention in the main WP article(s). Rwessel (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

In addition to the WP:ONEWAY fringe material that I reverted a few days ago, I've reverted the speculation about Shakespeare's use of Agrippa. It appears in a popular newspaper supplement, the author himself writes "I am not a Shakespeare scholar; far from it", and the ideas have received no academic hearing or response, much less is it mentioned in any RS Tempest criticism that I can find. I got a feeling this article needs to be cleaned up; it's been neglected for a few years. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is, of course, not reliable for an article on Shakespeare. It's a piece of journalism, and the text is full of the most basic errors of fact, along with rather bizarre claims, such as the view that Shakespeare's plays were structured as scientific experiment, a distinctly WP:FRINGE view. Paul B (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ariel

I notice that a recent change characterises Ariel as "wicked". It's not clear to me how this is justified. I shan't change it, but would welcome the reasoning behind the change. Agingjb (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

While I'm hardly an expert on Shakespeare, crimes committed by Ariel are alluded to (most directly in Prospero closing monologue). But I'm not sure I've ever heard Ariel described as "wicked", and Ariel's behavior *in* The Tempest is not such. Rwessel (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The word Prospero (WS) uses is "tricksy". Possibly a good replacement for wicked. Agingjb (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of "As you from crimes would pardon'd be", in the second to last line of the epilog. Rwessel (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that is said to the audience, an appeal for applause and approval, like Puck's in MND (there are a few others). But with Shakespeare nothing is necessarily simple. Anyway, I'll wait a bit, and possibly edit wicked to tricksy.Agingjb (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

An evaluation of the article composed for Written and Oral communication 130-17

This article does an exceptional job of documenting the various stage and screen adaptions of the Tempest and its history on the stage, and provides sufficient citation of its sources. While the article is over all very well put together, its sections regarding the play’s themes and critical interpretation of these themes is somewhat thin in comparison to other sections. Most of the sources in these sections are also more than 10 years old. A section like Interpretations could certainly be updated, as new interpretations of Shakespeare’s work are constantly arising. These sections are also not cited as thoroughly as the historical ones. Although a few offhand comments have escaped citation (a comment about a production in which one actor played three major roles seems to have no origin), the article’s author(s) have done a very good job documenting the history of the play and providing citation for their sources. Mk edwards (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mk edwards and, on behalf of all the editors who have contributed to the article: thanks for the review! You cut straight to the quick with your comments, as the Themes and motifs and Criticism and interpretation sections are what we've previously identified as the weakest parts of the article. Mostly this is because none of the editors who've worked on the article are particularly oriented towards literary criticism (most lit crit makes me break out in hives, personally).

You can see our previous effort to remedy this in the talk page archives here: Talk:The Tempest/Archive 2#Needed_expansion. If in your studies you run into good sources that add to those lists of themes or approaches, or that summarise its critical history from one of those perspectives, a quick note here with tips on good sources to use would be very helpful. And, of course, if you felt you were able to tackle the project yourself then that would be even better. :)

In any case, thank you for your evaluation comments, and good luck with your assignments. And do please feel free to {{ping}} me if you need any advice or assistance in connection with Wikipedia's Shakespeare-related articles. --Xover (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xover. My upcoming assignment involves editing an article, so I may be proposing some edits after I do some research. Thanks so much for reaching out :) Mk edwards (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Confusing wording in opening paragraph

Text currently reads: "He conjures up a storm, the eponymous tempest, to lure his usurping brother Antonio and the complicit King Alonso of Naples to the island."

Since one lures with temptations, not life-threatening storms, this wording is confusing to those unfamiliar with the play. It is better explained in the section titled Plot: "Prospero, having divined that his brother Antonio is on a nearby ship, has raised a tempest that causes the passengers to believe they are shipwrecked and marooned."

I suggest the wording from the latter section be used in the opening paragraph: "He conjures up a storm, the eponymous tempest, to cause his usurping brother Antonio and the complicit King Alonso of Naples to believe they are shipwrecked and marooned on the island," perhaps.

I am reading the article to refresh my memory of the play, which I have not read in decades, & will leave the decision as to whether or not to make the edit to those with better knowledge.

14:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)A Michener (talk)

@A Michener: Thanks for the suggestion. I've changed the article accordingly. --Xover (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Leave it the way it is. It is after all Shakespearian writing. Asha Sundrani (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"Feminist critique" section.

@ObservingEgo: You have been repeatdly asked to discuss your concerns n this page rather than keep reverting. Your counter example of an "Amputees' section" is a strawman argument, since no reliable sources have discussed the lack of amputees in the play. Whereas this section, as its source demnostrates, explicititly fulfills the most fundamental criteria Wikipedia upholds, that of material being verifiable. In any case, re-igniting an edit war when the page has so recently had full-protection lifted, could be a phenomonally dangerous strategy, depending on how much longevity wone wished for one's career as a Wikipedian. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and interpretation/Postcolonial section

"...Although scholars have suggested that his [Ariel's] dialogue with Caliban in Act two, Scene one, contains hints of a future alliance between the two when Prospero leaves..."

There is no such dialog in Act two, Scene one in any copy of the Tempest available to me. In fact, I believe there is no dialog at all between Ariel and Caliban at any point in the play, and no "hint" anywhere of a "future alliance between the two when Prospero leaves".

I'm also unable to find any "suggestion" of such a dialog in the cited article, (reference 33) Dolan, Frances E. (1992). "The Subordinate('s) Plot: Petty Treason and the Forms of Domestic Rebellion", which is in fact directly available for our reading pleasure at http://english.ucdavis.edu/sites/english.ucdavis.edu/files/users/fdolan/DolanPETTY_TREASON_AND_THE_FORMS_OF_DOMESTIC_REBELLION.pdf

So perhaps we can rewrite or remove this sentence. WavesMartyKent (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@WavesMartyKent: You're right. Nice catch!

Dolan (1992) (all 33 pages of it, sigh) does not mention anything that could even remotely support this sentence. The paragraph in question was added on 5 November 2007—in the midst of a spurt of editing by multiple editors—in this edit by Wrad. Since he usually knows what he is about, I'm loath to just remove it absent his feedback, so I've tagged the sentence with the {{failed verification}} template for now. He edit pretty intermittently these days, so I'm inclined to wait a goodly while to give him a chance to see it and respond.

@Wrad: Any chance you can recall where you saw this claim (since it clearly wasn't in Dolan)? Alternately, can you provide any other pointers that might let us cite this claim, or, if appropriate, rephrase it to better match the sources? Might it, for example, be refering to one of the post-colonial adaptation rather than to The Tempest itself? --Xover (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the note in the Notes and references subsection: “All references to The Tempest, unless otherwise specified, are taken from…” etc.

That particular note requires that any reference to the play, if it is to be verified (and if it has, say, only one source) to be verified twice: Once with the direct support of the citation, and a second time with the indirect source of Folgers.

That note violates Wikipedia’s principles of verification, which says that sources belong in the citation — not down at the bottom of the article — and which also prohibits “indirect” sourcing. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. So I will delete it. It’s not needed, and there’s plenty wrong with it:

That note says: “All references to The Tempest, unless otherwise specified, are taken from Folgers” — but that appears to be a false statement. “All references” are not taken from Folgers: First, this article begins with a massive quantity of content with zero citations. (Best of luck verifying all that.) When you finally come to the first citation, it certainly refers to the play, yet it has absolutely nothing to do with Folgers.

That note wastes an editor’s time, for example: A reference now in the subsection Other Sources, is sourced to Arden —in Arden the numbers exactly coincide with the content they are supporting. What will checking with the Folger version show? That the Arden and the Folger numberings are identical in that example.

Regarding the act-scene-line formatting used by Folgers, some might prefer the common method of just using the words “act, scene, line”. The Folger formatting seems to appear only once (!) in the entire article. So why are we so insistent in requiring this “double-verification” idea, which violate the guidelines, and wastes time? It reeks of deliberate meaningless pedantry. So I will delete the note. Bitwixen (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bitwixen. Glad to see a new editor take an interest in the Shakespeare articles. There are far too few people working in the area, so I'm always happy to see new blood join the project, and I've been watching your edits with interest.

That being said, once your edit was challenged (that is, when it was reverted), you need to seek consensus for the desired change on the article's talk page. To reapply the edit without gaining consensus first falls under edit warring and will pretty much only lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Also, in order to actually persuade anyone to your position you may want to dial down the combative tone. Nobody is likely to be persuaded by being insulted and browbeaten. And that extends to edit summaries: kudos for consistently explaining your changes in the edit summary, but a lot of them come across as pretty high-handed and dismissive of the previous efforts of other editors.

As to the substance of your argument, you appear to be confused about several points. First, the text of the play is cited four times in the current article, and all four are to the edition published by the Folger. As I'm sure you are aware there are often significant textual differences between different editions of Shakespeare's plays. It is thus essential that references to the play are to a specified edition. I'm not sure what page number you refer to since the Folger Digital edition doesn't have page numbers, but in any case the page numbers for the Arden ediition are irrelevant since that's not the edition that is cited. Now we do cite the Arden edition, both the second and third series editions, and the Oxford as well; but we're citing the scholarship in the introduction or textual apparatus and not the text of the play itself.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "indirect" citation as that word does not appear anywhere on WP:V. However, this article uses a consistent ciitation style (see WP:CITEVAR), that is also common on other Wikipedia articles: there are short citations in footnotes, that refer to full bibliographic references in the bibliography at the end. This is also quite common in scholarly monographs and articles. For the citations to the play itself, the web link in the short citation is just a convenience for the reader—since the Folger text, unlike the Arden and Oxford texts, is actually available and linkable online—with the actual full reference in the note you are objecting to (along with an explanation of the act/scene/line format, since all editions use different formats and a lay reader may not be familiar with any given format). Without the note the citation is not complete: that is, without the note the citations would fail verifiability.

You also complain of the article beginning with "a massive quantity of content with zero citations". What you see there (the text before the table of contents) is the article's lead section. The lead section introduces the topic and summarises the rest of the article. It should normally contain no information not already present, and cited, in the body of the article, and thus will normally not have any citations itself. This, by the way, is "Wikipedia 101" stuff. --Xover (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The editor above has twisted my words around and put words in my mouth. I'd be more interested in a quality response. I don't want to get involved in a trollish lot of garble, so I'll leave it. I stand by what I said as accurate. Bitwixen (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: You're free to do as you please, of course. But the decision-making process on Wikipedia is based on consensus, so if you are unwilling to engage in constructive discussion you will find it hard to achieve much of anything here. Also, for the second time, please refrain from personal attacks: comment on content, not on other contributors. --Xover (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

2010 film

There appears to be no mention of the 2010 film adaptation staring Dame Helen Mirren and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.137.5 (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Synopsis Needs Help

Broad ideas are missing from the synopsis (try using the word "castaways" at least once!) Don't go into detail (like lines from the play or bullet points for each character.) The synopsis could be done in four paragraphs. Here is a fine example: https://www.folger.edu/tempest but there are many others available. 24.236.92.77 (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Bulgaria on Jeopardy

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4172486 Onetimeonjeopardy (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)