Talk:Rosaline

message: 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)
thread_title: Short page

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Capulet? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm not so sure I love this part 

message: 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)
thread_title:  OR speculation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dude, Chill Out 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: 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.
 just got my facts wrong there. Wrad 14:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave the other two sentences to another copyeditor. RedRabbit1983 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA hold

message: 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.
*** 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Wrad, sorry. Awadewit | talk 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok.  I just needed a break.  I'll come back later today. Wrad 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I just found one interesting and recent performance and added it. Wrad 21:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it reads much better now. Nice work on the article. Awadewit | talk 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good, we made it. RedRabbit1983 10:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested re-review of GA hold

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yorick next? RedRabbit1983 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, yeah.  I've been looking into it. Wrad 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Work, People...now hold up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rosaline's chastity/celibacy 

message: "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)
replies: text: Some anon added it, and I agreed with it, so I didn't remove it. Wrad (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sophistry 

message: :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)
thread_title: GA Reassessment

message: 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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: Pass

message: 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)
thread_title:  ''A Roz by any other name'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of the name