# Talk:Rosaline

This is probably the shortest page I've ever seen...not as though anything can be done about, I guess...
-Vael300
You're right. I made it as long as I could - I'm not sure there's really anything else to say about her...
--BeastKing89 06:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of Shakespeare character articles with the same problem.  As the Shakespeare project develops, we should find a way to resolve this. Wrad 18:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I added some more. Wrad 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just been going through scholarly databases and added things.  Wow!  It's really getting some length.  I guess this just shows how well-known Shakespeare is, as an unseen character gets so much analysis.  It also shows how much expansion some of the smaller Shakespeare character articles could get if someone took them under wing. Wrad 04:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably doesn't matter that much, but I'm not sure if the last name is the only issue.  Scholars seem to call her a Capulet without hesitation.  For example, when it comes to last names, I consider myself a Gile, even though it isn't my last name, because I am a part of that extended family. Wrad 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You're saying that just because you are related to someone, you can consider yourself a part of his/her family - thus, you can use his/her last name. The problem with this logic is that Romeo could be considered a Capulet too, since he married one. But scholars don't refer to him as a Capulet, do they? Nor do they refer to Juliet as a Montague, for that matter.
So I take issue with scholars who refer to her as a Capulet, because I argue that there is significant reason to assume that she's not. First of all, were she truly a "Capulet," Romeo would have had the same problem that he did with Juliet. Secondly, there was no prerequisite to attending the party that one had to be a Capulet - only that you couldn't be a Montague.
So yes, I suppose she is a Capulet, in a sense. But I think to refer to her as such in an article would be a mistake because it implies things that aren't necessarily (and probably aren't altogether) true. --BeastKing89 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Other analysts have said that the apparent difference in Romeo's feelings is only one of language as Shakespeare developed his skill: The younger Shakespeare describing Rosaline, and the more experienced describing Juliet. In this view, a careful look at the play reveals that Romeo's love for Rosaline is not as dismissive as is usually imagined.
Yes, this interpretation is well-sourced, but I just don't think the theory itself holds any water, nor do I feel it adds anything valuable. 
1. Older Shakespeare? Younger Shakespeare? How about older/younger Romeo. Romeo has aged by what, a couple of hours? Where is the historical evidence that states that Shakespeare based Romeo off of himself? Or Rosaline off of his own experiences with other women? While certainly very interesting, this theory is founded entirely on speculation, thus making it too weak to be mentioned in an article.
2. Romeo's love for Rosaline is most certainly not "dismissive." It reveals an otherwise unnatainable insight into his character and serves as a crucial plot device, as another part of this (otherwise excellent) paragraph mentions.
So I'm taking it out. I'm willing to discuss it, however.
--BeastKing89 08:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Scholars very frequently see it as dismissive next to his love for Juliet, so I think it should go back.  I added it back.  If you can find a source for your older/younger Romeo idea, then add it, but please don't remove reliably sourced info just because you don't agree. Also, please read the article before dismissing it as speculation. Wrad 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but your past two disputes have been in the face of peer-reviewed, scholarly articles, and seem to be OR to me.  I'm tempted to change it all the way back to what it was when I added these reputable sources, and challenge you to cite your opposing claims with similarly reliable sources.  The only changes I would make in this revert would be to cite the statement that she is a Capulet, and to make it clear in what context Rosaline and Romeo's love is "dismissive."  I don't think I was clear in the first writing.
I just want to say that in wikipedia, it really doesn't matter what you or any single user thinks, it only matters what the sources think.  If the sources say something, it holds a lot more wallop than a personal opinion unbacked by sources.  However, if you can find sources for your claims, go ahead and add them. I won't take it personally, after all, the ideas I added are not mine, but a source's. Wrad 21:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I made the above changes, with the adjustments.  Please don't remove reliably cited information (i.e. from scholarly works) without providing another source countering that view. Wrad 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong to make those deletions - they were well-sourced. That was my mistake, and I apologize.
But, for the record, I still have trouble believing that Romeo would willingly seek out a Capulet to love. Because he fell in love with Juliet before he found out who she was. Especially since "puppy love," as your source puts it, would likely be enough to get him killed.
I may not be able to put this in the article, but I can still put it on the discussion page, no?
--BeastKing89 08:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I should have brought it up earlier and was kind of bottling it up.  I could be clearer on the danger of puppy love thing.  The source said that it was probably safer for him to be in love with the niece rather than the daughter of Capulet. Is that what you mean? It also says that she may have turned him down out of fear of her uncle. Wrad 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I was referring to, but it's a valid point. If the article could say that, that would make it clearer. 
While we're at it, I can clarify some stuff, too. Romeo's love for Rosaline is only "insignificant" after he has met Juliet. At first, he proclaims himself dead inside: "She hath forsworn to love, and in that vow / do I live dead that live to tell it now." Although it was brief, it mattered quite a bit.
Rosaline does indeed serve as something to compare Juliet against, in several respects. My only issue is the "older/younger Shakespeare" vehicle for expressing this. Maybe it's just word choice. (And for the record, I did read the article you cited.) 
--BeastKing89 19:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind if you change it make it clearer that the article is saying she's only insignificant to some in comparison to Juliet. (The article argues against the idea that she is insignificant in the way other scholars have, but explains the opposing view, as I tried to do.)  The older/younger Shakespeare thing, though, is the point of the whole article, so it probably should stay, although I don't mind if we add another source that says otherwise, or if you say something from the article that balances that out. Wrad 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking it will be very hard to get an image of Rosaline, but I guess she is in Zeffirelli's film.  Can anyone get a screenshot of her? Wrad 02:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I got one, but it's pretty low quality.  If anyone has the DVD, feel free to replace. Wrad 04:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just brainstorming ways to get this article better organized.  Possible sections include Unrequited love, Paradox, Comparison to Juliet. Wrad 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

While this article looks fairly good, there are some issues that need to be resolved before it can be promoted to GA. With some work on the part of the editors, I am certain that this can happen within the course of the next week.
Questionable claims:

Rosaline is only used as a name for one other Shakespearean character, usually called Rosalind, in Love's Labours Lost. - There is a "Rosaline" in Love's Labours Lost and a Rosalind in As You Like It. - Please explain.
 Done just got my facts wrong there. Wrad 14:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Other critics argue that the apparent difference in Romeo's feelings for the two only reflects Shakespeare's improving skill: the younger Shakespeare describing Rosaline, and the more experienced describing Juliet. - Would you mind typing out a quotation that supports this from your source? Is the source claiming Shakespeare wrote the play over the course of several years or something? If that is true, that needs to be made clear here.
 Done Agree. Valuable point. Needs to be there. Wrad 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The lead may assume too much knowledge - it assumes knowledge of the plot, the Capulets and Romeo's doings. I thought it was a bit much.

Scholarly analysis of Rosaline largely focuses on her role as a comparison to Romeo's other lover, Juliet, with some scholars seeing her relationship with Romeo as superficial in comparison, and others seeing it as important and preparatory - Is it split 50/50 or is there a prevailing view? If there is a prevailing view, let's tell the reader so. This is a general problem overall in the article. It just says "some people say this" and "others say this." We need a sense of the general view. (I know, for example, that the psychoanalytic reading is not the standard view.)
(Just brainstorming here) mainstream ideas include: Petrarchan subject of Romeo, paradoxical love, superficial change, silly love for Rosaline, though Juliet is up in the air... Wrad 17:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I've clarified what is mainstream and what isn't, by qualifying appropriate statements.  If you see any weaknesses, let me know. Wrad 01:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Prose: I have done a lot of copy editing of this article, but it needs much more; here are some suggestions for improvement. I would also suggest that a copy editor be brought by to help out - fresh eyes are always helpful.

I've enlisted one.  Once I clear the issues below I'll have him take a look at it. Wrad 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
even as a mirror through which a reader's view of his relationship with Juliet is clarified - why is the reader a "he"?
'he' is Romeo, not the reader. hmmm... Wrad 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 Done This statement was cut. Wrad 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
She is a Capulet, Lord Capulet's niece. - seems redundant and not particularly explanatory
 Done Wrad 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Both because of her name and because of Romeo's view of her as the ideal female, Rosaline is seen by some scholars as a physical incarnation of the rose. - wordy and repetitious
The arguments surrounding Romeo and Rosaline are very similar to the arguments of Shakespeare's sonnets 1-17, the procreation sonnets. - Confusing - do you mean the "themes"? "Arguments" sounds like scholarly debates. (Also, "arguments" is repetitive.)
I guess both could work, but the analysis claims that the arguments made in both are similar, not the themes.  Both argue for settling for something 'less desirable' in order to procreate. Wrad 17:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 Done Wrad 01:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Shakespeare's sonnets 1-17, the procreation sonnets - Is there anyway to say "Shakespeare's procreation sonnets (1-17)" and link it correctly? The phrase is wordy right now (repetition of "sonnets").
 Done Wrad 01:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
find a woman so he can reproduce and move society along - "move society along"? - vague
 Done Wrad 01:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The young man in the poems is thought by many to be homosexual, and the poet to be thus only suggesting a woman companion as a duty, as a relationship with a man will bring no offspring. - "thought by many scholars" perhaps? Sentence is rather convoluted.
 Done Wrad 01:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
All of this ties itself to Rosaline's name in the first sonnet, when the young man is described as "beauties Rose." - "All of this" is vague - be precise.
This line ties the young man to both Rosaline and Juliet in Juliet's "What's in a name?" sololoquoy, raising questions as to whether a rose smells sweet be it man or woman. - repetition of "ties"; very awkward sentence - quote from the soliloquy, perhaps
 Done Broke this up and quoted the soliloquy. Wrad 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Both are also very defensive when it comes to romance: Rosalind causing her suitor to fall under a year-long servitude, and constantly rebuffing his advances, and Rosaline remaining distant as well as chaste in her brief descriptions. - very awkward phrasing - wordy
 Done Wrad 20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Without her, a reason for Romeo's taking such a risk would be hard to come by. - colloquial wording
I've rewritten this at Wrad's request. RedRabbit1983 13:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
All of this development brings him the maturity he needs to prepare him to maintain a relationship with Juliet—a relationship fraught with much of both war, love, and Capulets. - wordy and trite ("and Capulets"?)
This too. RedRabbit1983 13:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Other film makers keep her off camera, keeping more in line with the Shakespearean script. - repetition of "keep"
 Done Wrad 03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Drop me a message on my talk page when these revisions have been made or if you have any questions about this review. Awadewit | talk 10:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the other two sentences to another copyeditor. RedRabbit1983 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done a once-over copyedit of the article, as requested by Wrad. However, I have left the following sentences alone.

Scholarly analysis of Rosaline largely focuses on her role as a comparison to Juliet, with most scholars seeing her relationship with Romeo as superficial.
Less prominent points of view on their relationship include the idea that Rosaline is written by an younger, less-skilled Shakespeare, or that Rosaline is Romeo's real love for the entire play—replaced in name only by Juliet. Later performances of Romeo and Juliet have painted different pictures of Romeo and Rosaline's relationship, as film makers have experimented with making Rosaline a more visible character.
 Done I notice both of these are in the intro, so I rewrote that portion.  Hope it looks better. Wrad 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Although Rosalind plays a much larger role in this play, the comparison to Romeo's Rosaline has not been overlooked.
 Done Clarified this. Wrad 20:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps they are in need of clearer explanation to make them less confusing. The lengthy speculation in the second paragraph in What's in a name? seems to violate WP:Weight. Is there any particular reason for its prominence? I'll have a look Awadewit's criticism next and see if there is anything I can do. After that, I'm done. 
By the way, I apologise if I seem not to have put enough effort into the copyedit. I'm rather tired tonight. RedRabbit1983 13:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you did a great job on it, and I'll see if I can't finish up.  As for the name section, it is from a relatively recent work on Shakespeare in Gender studies, which focused on Rosaline a lot more than most critics do.  The book seems to be the work of a number of academics, so although it is new, it is reliable.  It is just difficult to sum up their arguments in proportion to the rest of the article when they say almost as much about Rosaline in one book as about 2/3 of the rest of my sources put together. How could this be addressed, or does it really need to be? Wrad 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, nevermind. A note that the ideas are speculative would help but is probably not necessarily for now. RedRabbit1983 05:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
These sentences are confusing:

As he gains experience and skill, he meets Juliet, and his poetic ability increases.
Rosaline in Love's Labours Lost causes her suitor to fall under a year-long servitude, and constantly rebuffs his advances.
 Done Wrad 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
RedRabbit1983 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be unavailable as of tomorrow. Good luck. RedRabbit1983 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I went no further than the lead since it is still in need of a copy edit. I have added internal comments to explain the problems with the sentences. Awadewit | talk 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I might just be tired, but I really don't agree with your comments.  I'll come back tomorrow and see if I feel the same way. Wrad 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There was repetitive diction and a dropped word. Please check over the article carefully. I suggest reading it aloud at least twice. That is what I always do on my final run-throughs. Awadewit | talk 03:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Because of my invovlement, as of yesterday, I decided to have a look. I rewrote the sentences in question. RedRabbit1983 03:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure if the above was addressed to Wrad or me. All the same, I rewrote it in a form with which I am happy. There is repetition of "love" in one sentence, but this is hardly a problem. RedRabbit1983 03:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Wrad, sorry. Awadewit | talk 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It's ok.  I just needed a break.  I'll come back later today. Wrad 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am now passing the article - it is much better. Just one sentence needs a little help - see internal comment. For overall improvement, I can only think of one thing at the moment, the "Performance" section discusses the eighteenth-century stage tradition and the twentieth-century film tradition, but what about the nineteenth- and twentieth-century stage traditions? Awadewit | talk 22:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.  I touched up the sentence you mentioned, and I'll see what I can find on more recent stage performances. Wrad 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I just found one interesting and recent performance and added it. Wrad 21:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it reads much better now. Nice work on the article. Awadewit | talk 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh good, we made it. RedRabbit1983 10:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been a great success story - when I first saw this page, it had like three sentences. Now it's a GA. If this can be done on pages that mean nothing in the long run (like this one does), why not apply the same dedicated process to pages that DO matter? There are literally dozens of Shakespearean characters (who are much more memorable and important than Rosaline) whose pages either totally blow or do not even exist. Imagine what could be done with, say, Othello. Or Leontes. Now that we've established what's possible, let's move on to bigger things. Who's with me?
--BeastKing89 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am!  I just did it to make the point you're making, along with another one: There is virtually no reason for any Shakespeare character article to be a stub! Wrad 02:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yorick next? RedRabbit1983 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, yeah.  I've been looking into it. Wrad 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed "Rosaline, however, chooses to remain chaste" to "Rosaline, however, chooses to remain celibate", because I felt the use of "remain chaste" to explain Rosaline's rejection of Romeo carried an implication either that he was trying to seduce her to sex outside of marriage, or that Rosaline would have been unchaste if she had abstained from sex until marrying Romeo, and had then been faithful to him. (And that, of course, implies that Juliet was unchaste, even though she's obviously a virgin on her wedding night, and later expresses a desire to "live an unstain'd wife to [her] sweet love.") I realize that Benvolio asks if Rosaline has "sworn that she will still live chaste", and Romeo confirms it. But we're not using a direct quotation, so I think we should avoid using the word chaste, with the implications it carries. Remember too that the first mention of Lucrece in The Rape of Lucrece is of "Collatine's fair love, Lucrece the chaste", even though Lucrece was married to Collatine, and presumably did not keep her virginity.
Wrad, I see that you reverted me, saying that it's not about marriage, it's about sex. I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'm sure you don't mean that the reason for Romeo's depression was that Rosaline was refusing to have sex outside of marriage. My reading of the play was that Rosaline intended to remain a virgin, and therefore was unwilling to consider marriage at all. I'd like to find a wording that expresses that without introducing ideas that marriage and sex would mean giving up chastity. (Also from Lucrece we have the line "O, that prone lust should stain so pure a bed!") Cowardly Lion (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that you explain it, I see what you're saying. We can go ahead and change it. Wrad (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::I don't think we're obliged to use a particular word just because it's in the play. It's perfectly possible just to say that Rosaline rejects Romeo, or that she doesn't return his love. When Romeo later tells Friar Laurence of the difference between the current situation with Juliet and the previous situation with Rosaline, the difference is that Juliet returns his love whereas Rosaline did not; it's not that Juliet is prepared to sleep with him outside of marriage, while Rosaline wasn't. There's absolutely no implication in the play that Romeo was trying to persuade Rosaline to have sex with him without being married. So I'd prefer to say that Rosaline rejects his love, or that she wants to remain a virgin, rather than introduce ideas that Romeo had designs on her chastity. Cowardly Lion (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My last post had an edit conflict with yours, but I posted it anyway. I see you've changed back. Thanks. I'm open to a better wording, if you're not completely comfortable with that one. Cowardly Lion (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really agree that there's no implication, but I do agree that celibacy is a better word. Sorry about the edit conflict stuff. I make up my mind as I write quite often. Wrad (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"This argument, with its wide assumptions and specious reasoning, is a classic example of sophistry in modern academia."
This line seems off.  It isn't impartial, and also makes me wonder why the whole preceding paragraph is there.  Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jancola (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 

Some anon added it, and I agreed with it, so I didn't remove it. Wrad (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, actually I agree too. But it's still WP:OR, so I will remove it. That doesn't mean I would object to a more balanced treatment, or to a removal or softening of the preceding argument. AndyJones (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Rosaline/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.


### GA Sweeps: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just finished reading a one-act play by that name by B.T. Ryback in the anthology The Best American Short Plays, the 2007-2008 edition (edited by Barbara Parisi). Rosaline here features as the main character of the play (where she is called "Rosalind" oddly enough, though there's no doubt in my mind that it's her). The play probably deserves a mention here, don't ya think? Bobnorwal (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In Romeo and Juliet: A BBC Radio 3 Full-cast Dramatisation (1999) the name Rosaline is pronounced /-laɪn/, contrary to the article's suggestion that /-lɪn/ or /-liːn/ is the only correct pronunciation. 109.94.180.165 (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)