Talk:Titus Andronicus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Racquel-ortega, LinhMao94, Mkoggeusf. Peer reviewers: Maricarmen garciaramos, Rummens97, Jmirto95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

"It could be argued though that the play's heritage of violence could be traced as far back to Seneca, by whom Shakespeare was influenced and imitated to good effect."

This sentence is written as though it's supposed to contest something in the previous sentence, but it fails to do so - it seems like a non-sequitor. And no one "argues" that Shakespeare was drawing on Senecan tradition because everbody agrees that Seneca was the inspiration for this type of play. I'd rewrite the sentence, but I can't figure out what the original author was trying to say.68.118.61.219 00:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also??

Should we tie to Andronicus I Comnenus which may have been a historical reference for the play? WBardwin 08:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the play is based on him? The Singing Badger 13:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my university Shakespeare teacher/and my memory. There's probably a book reference with the theory out there somewhere. WBardwin 21:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov argues pursuasively that the play has no direct connection to any historical figure. For example, it is clearly part of pre-Christian Rome, because the whole cycle of revenge starts with the burial-sacrifice of one of Tamora's sons. Andronikos I Komnenos OTOH was 12th century, definitely Christian era. The play's theme of revenge piled upon revenge could have drawn upon many sources ... it's a popular theme! rewinn 06:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, there is a very strong argument that Lavinia is based on Philomel in Ovid's Metamorphoses. But that's more of a literary foundation than any sort of historical tie-in. The Jade Knight 10:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In my Penguin edition of Shakespeare, the 'unknown' boy is called "young Lucius". Rintrah 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I just looked again, and "young Lucius" is in the stage direction opening Act IV. Also Marcus says "Stand by me, Lucius, do not fear thy Aunt". Later the boy refers to Marcus as "Uncle" and Lavina as "Aunt". Perhaps these terms are being used a little loosely; if Lavinia were his aunt, Marcus would be his great-uncle. But anyway, at least the boy has a name! thanks. rewinn 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reputation

I have changed the text so that "consider it childish, juvenile, or believe that it is populist trash written only to make money" now reads "consider it childish, juvenile, or believe that it is low-brow trash written only to make money." "Populist" has political connotations that are certainly irrelevant, and "popular" would probably be the correct word to use EXCEPT that many of WS's plays were popular and so condemning one of his plays for being popular is tantamount to condemning pretty nearly all his plays for the same reason. (Shakespeare wrote for people and audiences and not for the desk-drawer, as someone or other once remarked!) However, it seemed to me that that sense intended was not to condemn it for being popular but for being low-brow, and so have changed the text conformably.

This entire section strikes me as rather awkward. It doesn't read clearly, and much of the writing strikes me as unnecessarily complex to the point of confusion. I've made some edits, but I'm still not very happy with how it reads. Anyone with better ideas on how to rephrase some of the more glaringly clumsy sections, please do so. --CurtisSchweitzer 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to justify any Shakespeare play as "low-brow" or "trash", since the language, classical references, and themes are always above the low-brow or trashy level. Even the notorious scene in Hamlet, with the obvious genitalia reference, is too subtle to fit the modern definition of low-brow or trashy theatre. Anyway, Titus Andronicus is far more enjoyable than Silence of the Lambs. Rintrah 07:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with you but I can understand someone slagging this particular play for the cited reasons, although I personally do not agree with them. I think that it is a valid opinion, and might as well be left in; my only concern was that the choice of that particular word "populist" was problematical and wanted to change it to one more fitting. Hi There 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just get annoyed at the insidious criticism which insinuates itself into the reputation of Shakespeare's plays. Rintrah 14:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the Bloom comment necessary? I understand why criticisms of the play are described, but this opinion, from a pompous scholar, seems extraneous and annoying. Rintrah 12:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is incredibly one-sided and subjective. "Generally uninspired verse" is not presented as an opinion but as a fact. Only unfavourable, even mostly derisive, opinions about the play are reported. In The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare (possibly a better authority than whoever wrote this section), Anthony Davies writes, "The play is currently very popular [...]. Critics now tend to regard TA as at very least an interesting precursor of the mature tragedies." Both recent editors of TA in major editions (Jonathan Bate for Arden Third Series and Eugene Waith for The Oxford Shakespeare) do take the play seriously. I take it they are complete idiots since Harold Bloom's opinion is the only one worth taking into account. S.Camus (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate Character Pages

Its seems that none of the characters in this WS play have a separate page. Are they not notable enough to do so. I am no expert on WS, but if people think these pages could do with being created I am willing to give a hand. Cheers --81.111.69.221 19:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC) aka user:Lethaniol

It's a wiki. If you want to do separate pages then BE BOLD and do it. For what it's worth, though, if I were in your position I would expand the characters here in this article, then only break them out when and if this article got too long. AndyJones 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's really not necessary. AFAIK, the characters of the play aren't archetypes that have been repeatedly used by Shakespeare, nor have they been adapted into other works (Like Rosencrantz & Guildenstern in Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead). I'd recommend just creating a "Characters" and "Minor Characters" subsection with a blurb for each.

Okay I agree with you two - I will (when I get time) write up short summaries of each of the major characters and a list of the minor ones. If they become article worthy on their own then they can be made. By the way this is WS we are speaking about, and although I try to be bold, mucking about with these sorts of pages is a bit scary - oh well I am quite new. Cheers Lethaniol 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no abuse to WS that hasn't been used by some academic. Others will amend your mistakes, if there are any. Rintrah 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just added a section, copied from my complete works, for a character list. Most other Shakespeare plays on Wikipedia seem to have such a section.--King Hildebrand 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that making a separate page for the major characters is a good idea, but if that happens then the characters should be listed here in order of importance as opposed to whatever order in which they are currently. On a similar note, Chiron and Demetrius are said to play the spirits of Rape and Murder but it is not specified who plays whom. Racquel-ortega (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word 'hack'

I've noticed a few uses for 'hack' in this article...are they meant to be there? I'm going to edit them out, but if anyone disagrees with my decision let me know and I'll unedit them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebluelagoon (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed extraneous links

I've deleted a good number of pointless links on this page: specifically ones that were redundant (pointing to articles articled linked to only a few paragraphs above) or extraneous (pointing to common words like revenge, murder, gore, and so on. Can we try to keep the links in an article only to subjects that will expand the reader's understanding of the article itself? How likely is it that someone reading this article doesn't know what the word "murder" means?

Fabulous Creature 19:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary spoiler tags

Most of the articles about Shakespeare plays have a clearly marked section labelled "Synopsis" in which the plot is discussed. It's really unnecessary, and quite insulting, to put a further warning directly beneath that. These are well established plays and people come to read about them. When they see that the article contains a synopsis, they're not going to be surprised because this is an encyclopedia. If they read on and find out the plot of the play, then we have done our job correctly. Pandering for some imaginary people who may not realise that encyclopedias tell you about stuff, or that a plot summary inevitably contains a summary of the plot, is not productive, and certainly no justification for unnecessary duplication of information. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine where headers clearly show that plot-related material is present (such as under the "Synopsis" heading). The Jade Knight 10:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the dead emperor have a name?

Does the dead emperor have a name or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.119.112 (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

April 9 edits

Hi guys. Well, as y’all can see, I’ve made a couple of minor changes to the page!!! Now, I know the first thing everyone is thinking – it’s far far far too long. Far. Yep, I totally accept that, but it won’t be for long. I’ve earmarked three individual sections to be taken out and put on their own pages, but I wanted to get some opinions about it before I went to the trouble of creating pages that people may think are a waste of time. The three sections are The Peacham drawing, Authorship and Themes. Removing these three sections would bring the article down to an acceptable length. I think they’re the most logical ones to move (obviously, I’ll need to write brief intros and whatnot, and add links, but that’s no biggie), as the Text, Sources, Language, Performances and Adaptations sections wouldn’t really stand on their own as individual articles. That’s my thinking anyway, but I wanted to get some feedback before I did anything. The other thing I wanted to ask about is names; obviously the Peacham drawing will be at Peacham drawing, and I’ll redirect link Longleat manuscript and The Peacham drawing. But what should I call the other two: Titus Andronicus authorship question or Titus Andronicus (authorship question) or Titus Andronicus (authorship) and Titus Andronicus (themes) or Titus Andronicus themes or Themes in Titus Andronicus. Any advice on this is very much appreciated, as is any general feedback on the article itself. Bertaut (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_9#File:Laura_Rees_as_Lavinia.jpg

All opinions welcome. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Stratford Festival productions

The performance section makes reference to productions at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival:

"It had been set to be staged at the festival in 1929, as the only play in the canon not performed since the festival's origin in 1879, but it was replaced by Much Ado About Nothing when ticket sales proved poor."

This is clearly wrong as the Stratford Shakespeare Festival was established in 1953, but I don't have the resources at hand to straighten it out. -Dhodges (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Nice spot. I double checked my source (Dessen), and he says it was scheduled for the jubilee season in Stratford in a section where he talks about the 1978 production. Obviously, I misread it and conflated the jubilee season with the festival. I've deleted the inaccurate info. Thanks for pointing that out. Bertaut (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• • it's still a little muddled, 1879 would refer to the Royal Shakespeare Company. Doing some Googling, it seems they toured a production of 'Much Ado in what would have been their golden jubilee. Incidentally, it could only have been a tour, as their old theatre burned down and the new theatre opened in 1932.

What I'd suggest is moving that material up to the paragraph which refers to the 1955 Peter Brook production. again, I hesitate to do it myself as I don't have your source. -Dhodges (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not fully sure what you mean - move the cancelled 1929 info to the Brook section?

• Here's the exact quote from Dessen. He's talking about box office and unwanted laughter and whatnot, and he says "For the 1929 jubilee season in Stratford, Titus was proposed and even announced (as the only play that had not been done there in the fifty years since 1879) but box-office logic prevailed and its place was taken by Much Ado About Nothing." That's all the info he gives. Bertaut (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm inclined to remove it altogether. This is a general interest encyclopedia, too much detail isn't going to help the average reader. The main thing is not to put information about one Stratford in a paragraph that's primarily about the other.

• Yeah, fair point. I've removed it so. Bertaut (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

bot botch-ups

I noticed two places in Section Titus Andronicus#Television where dates like "1 January 64" were given in places where verse numbers were expected (1.1.64). I assume this was due to a bot that was out to detect malformed dates. I've changed them back. I haven't found any other occurrences in this article, but of course there may be some in other articles. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Radio

In 1923, extracts were broadcast on BBC Radio 1, performed by the Cardiff Station Repertory Company as the second episode of a series of programs showcasing Shakespeare's plays, entitled Shakespeare Night.

Now, are we sure about that? When, precisely, in 1923? And could someone please confirm that BBC Radio 1 was broadcasting in 1923. My understanding is that it first came on air in 1967. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.166.126 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually BBC radio was established October 18, 1922; and experimental transmissions were going on as early as 1920. So it is quite possible that they were doing Shakespeare broadcasts in 1923. In 1967 the BBC established BBC Radio 2, renamed the existing BBC Radio station as BBC Radio 1. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

BBC Radio was established in 1922. It was not called BBC Radio 1. To digress a little: the then 3 national BBC Radio stations "Home Service", "Light Programme" & "Third Programme" were replaced by respectively Radio 4, Radio 2, & Radio 3 and a new service "Radio 1" in 1967. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.166.126 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the link with the info: [1] There is a citation in the article itself, right at the start of the radio section, it says "All information is this section is taken from...". Regarding the name of the channel, the source is vague, so feel free to change it. Bertaut (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It seemed nobody else was going to fix it so I did. The idea of BBC Radio 1, a modern pop music station, featuring ANY play, let alone this one, is risible! Burgh House (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of non-free files

Do not re-add or I will take this to ANI and request that the user is blocked. If you want the removals reviewed file a request at WP:NFCR until that is closed the files say out. Werieth (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Any removal of content needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article. I'm not gonna get into an edit war, but I'm not gonna cave in to threats, either. Discuss the removal here as per WP policy and guidelines. WP is a collaborative venture, not a one-man show. From what I've read about this dispute just in the past 15 minutes it appears you do not play well with others. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to file a WP:NFCR. these files clearly fail NFCC and will be removed. Anyone can replace the non-free photos of the play with free ones. Werieth (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If they "clearly fail" you need to lay out your case here. I don't know if they fail or not; arguments have been made that indicate to me they do not fail. I do know your style of editing is not going to win you any awards. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCC enforcement will never get me anything other than abused. Anyone can replace the non-free files with free versions, the play is outside of copyright and thus creating free examples is doable. Werieth (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

So you've been here eight months now and you're the Enforcer, eh? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ive been here since March of 2010, and an active editor since June of last year. Im not the enforcer, just one of many. Werieth (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your account was created in December 2012. If you've been here longer, then you should know that you're supposed to notify an editor when you file a grievance at ANI, which I only discovered by looking at your edit history. You have not established that these files violate NFCC, nor have you achieved a consensus. To the contrary, your attempts have done nothing but sow disruption and begun an edit war. I am not questioning your motives; I'm sure you have nothing but the protection of Wikipedia in mind. If so, you should review the policies and guidelines in a bit more depth, and you also need to review the sanctions put in place by ArbCom for all Shakespeare-related pages here. I am going to revert your deletion one lst time. If you feel that your privileged position entitles you to violate Wikipedia polices concerning page reverts because your cause is just, by all means do so. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that the page has been protected until the dispute is settled. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please check your facts, Im not sure where you are getting December 2012 from, but if you look at the logs you will see March 14, 2010 User account Werieth (talk | contribs) was created. Werieth (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page Protected I've protected the page and I've decided that no one will get blocked. However, were I to block anyone it likely would've been the three editors restoring the content. I find that Werieth's argument is convincing on some images and not others. Werieth's failure to address each individual image is a fault in his reasoning but the assumption that because one image is allowed means all are allowed is a fallacy of composition.
  • File:Titus_(Final_Image).jpg This image passed WP:NFCC#1 because the text directly speaks about this portion of the play and attempts to describe the scene: "At the end of the film, young Lucius takes the baby and walks out of Rome, which Taymor feels represents hope for the future. Originally, the film was to end as Taymor's 1994 production had, with the implication that Lucius is going to kill Aaron's baby, but during production of the film, actor Angus Macfadyen, who played Lucius, convinced Taymor that Lucius was an honourable man and wouldn't go back on his word."
  • File:Baby_Coffin.jpg Likewise, this image is also allowed. "At the end of the play, as Lucius delivers his final speech, the camera stays on Young Lucius rather than his father, who is in the far background and out of focus, as he stares in horror at the coffin of Aaron's child (which has been killed off-screen)."
  • File:Laura_Rees_as_Lavinia.jpg Again, allowed. This is described in the article and no free image could serve it's purpose: "Bailey focused on a realistic presentation throughout the production; for example, after her mutilation, Lavinia is covered from head to toe in blood, with her stumps crudely bandaged, and raw flesh visible beneath."

However, the scenes for File:Lavinia_-_Ninagawa_production.jpg are not described and there is no verbaige at all about File:Titus_Poster.jpg as the poster. Because of that, the images are not demonstrating anything original in the article and do not pass WP:NFCC#1. Because Werieth's complaint was partially valid, I've chosen not to block him. Right or wrong about NFCC, that's the bottom line. The question to ask yourself for WP:NFCC#1 is not "Is there a free copy of this image out there?" The question is really "Can the article content be demonstrated by a free image?" That's the threshold for NFCC#1. Editors should take copyright claims very seriously and edit warring to restore images whose acceptance under WP:NFCC is in dispute can quickly earn a block. You all should seek to build consensus or outside help before restoring that material.--v/r - TP 16:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I came late to this dance but I clearly stated that consensus should be built on the talk page before any wholesale removal by anyone. If Werieth had followed the ArbCom sanctions in place for this page, all this drama could have been avoided. And if I am not mistaken in my interpretation of this discussion, Bertaut clearly agreed that the File:Titus_Poster.jpg could go. By your judgment above, Werieth is 40% correct, not an encouraging percentage for a self-appointed enforcer. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't intend to comment anymore on this dispute, but please don't take what I say as a "judgement." Admins do not solve content disputes. I'm only explaining my rationale on why I didn't block Werieth or any of ya'all. The rest is up to ya'all to determine.--v/r - TP 21:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

TP you're not from Texas, are you? "Y'all" is the contraction for "you all". Tom Reedy (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Replaceability

No one has yet to assert why we cannot have a freely licensed image to illustrate the points in this article. This play is over 400 years old. It should be fairly easy to either request a freely licensed image from one of the groups performing it, or to get a group of actors together to stage a scene or two and photograph that under a free license. Just because we have non-free files available doesn't mean we can use them. So far the only reason to use non-free files is ease of use and WP:ILIKEIT, which boils down to blatant violations of WP:NFCC#1 as a free version of any of these images can be created. Werieth (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's great that anyone can edit, but it's a shame that some of those who do have no idea of when it would be appropriate to explain their position rather than act like an automaton. Special:ListUsers/Werieth shows "Created on 14 March 2010" (an easy way to see that is to click "User rights" at the bottom of the a user's contribs). Being right does not replace the need to collaborate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What more needs clarified? I have asserted that the files are replaceable, and provided reasons for that position. I have yet to be given an answer to that issue. Werieth (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it is not possible to fully explain every action taken, but anyone enforcing an obscure policy like WP:NFCC should have some boilerplate or a link to provide as an explanation when opposition is encountered. Bear in mind that the issue is not that urgent that it must be resolved in the next five minutes, and by just edit warring you are sucking good editors into a trap. This is an excellent article maintained by excellent editors, and they deserve a little more care than is possible when dealing with new accounts advocating for a garage band. It's likely that editors of topics related to Shakespeare have never heard of NFCC, and it's hard to tell the difference between an enforcer and the random warriors that are often seen at Wikipedia. Fortunately the admins who saw your attempt at ANI are smarter than average. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What's sad is that people view the NFCC as an "obscure policy". Werieth has demonstrated that the images are inherently replaceable, making them an WP:NFCC#1 violation. That's all he really needs to demonstrate.—Kww(talk) 17:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

When something that has already been discussed and judged to be fine such as this, then it is not "unquestionably" a violation. On that alone Werieth would need to seek to established it is in fact a violation per WP:3RRNO #5. His attitude so far has been that he knows more than other reviewers, as he said here, and that those who judged it otherwise must be wrong. That is not an attitude that is conducive to a collaborative environment in Wikipedia. Randomly looking at his edits, you'd find that he would simply remove all the images, claiming excessive use for example here - excessive does not everything should be removed, therefore he did not actually give a proper reason for removing everything. Whether he is correct there I don't know, but his actions come across as indiscriminate and he sees his opinion to be better than others. I don't think he has shown anyway that the images are necessarily replaceable, for example File:Lavinia_-_Ninagawa_production.jpg appears to be something highly stylized and unusual and I'm not sure it will be repeated again (I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), therefore may not be photographed. I should also add I'm sure what he does is useful and necessary in Wikipedia, but he needs to take other people's opinion into account and be more considered in his approach. Hzh (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The FfD you cite has no mention of WP:NFCC#1 at all, and the #8 argument wasnt made. You cite my removals at T. K. Seung as being invalid, I disagree, and am starting to wonder about your competence in regards to non-free media. I removed 6 non-free files from a biography article, which reads more like a bibliography on a set of books that are not notable enough to have their own article. Please see WP:NFLIST which prohibits usage of non-free files in lists, discographies, bibliographies, and similar cases. If thats not enough I can point you to megabytes of discussion clarifying it. Usage of book covers in the articles about the author is a violation of WP:NFCC in most cases, See WP:NFCI#1 there was not critical commentary on the contents of the covers. I often leave other non-free media in articles when I remove others I left 2, 2, 2, and one more example where 4 where left. Any of the images can be re-created, whether they are re-created or not isnt a factor. NFCC#1 doesnt say anything about the probability of a free image being released, it is about whether or not a free image can be created. I do take all sides into consideration, however invalid arguments dont carry much weight. When I removed 59 non-free files from a single list article the arguments of the author where taken into consideration and where completely invalid. Just because someone complains about the removal of non-free media doesn't mean Im going to leave the files there. Wikipedia m:Mission and policies dictate my actions, WP:ILIKEIT isnt a valid reason. Werieth (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You are not helping your argument, denigrating other people's understanding of non-free media while making false argument. WP:NFLIST states "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section", it does not "prohibits usage of non-free files in lists, discographies, bibliographies, and similar cases" as you put it, instead it says "non-free images should be used judiciously". It is also meant to apply to "small sections of information", not the large sections in that article (T. K. Seung). With such deliberate misrepresentation of the guidelines (and indeed what I said), and continuing attempt to belittle others who don't agree with you, I doubt that is anything further to discuss and anything meaningful can come out of this. So I'll leave this discussion. Hzh (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did intend to file a WP:NFCR yesterday when I got home from work, but by that stage all hell had broken loose, two AN/I had been filed and an admin was already involved, so there seemed little point. As regards "Werieth has demonstrated that the images are inherently replaceable". No he hasn't. He has stated it (repeatedly) and made suggestions about putting on a production of the show so as to take a photo(!). Presumably with a Laura Rees lookalike. He keeps saying the play is 400 years old and in the public domain. Very true. But it was off the stage for over 300 years and only revived in the modern theatre in 1955. It's one of Shakespeare's least performed plays and very much a fringe piece of drama in the grand scheme of things. Comparing it to Romeo and Juliet (the most illustrated play in the history of literature) is like comparing a selfie-obsessed Z-list Twitter using celebrity with J.D. Salinger or Terry Malick. And I'm curious as to how the image from Titus and the BBC production are "inherently replaceable". They are, by definition, non-replacable non-free images. And, as I've told Werith three times, the Lavinia image was already adjudged not to fail WP:NFCC#1 when it was up for deletion. WP:NFCC#1 is a judgement call (not in all cases obviously, but certainly in this one) and the majority of people have judged it passes. However, Werith seems to think that whatever judgement he makes must be binding. This is not so. I'm happy enough with the admin's arguments above. So I see little point in continuing to drag this out. That's pretty much all I have to say really. Bertaut (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Bertaut, the Rees image is replaceable with "Bailey focused on a realistic presentation throughout the production; for example, after her mutilation, Lavinia is covered from head to toe in blood, with her stumps crudely bandaged, and raw flesh visible beneath." There's nothing about actually seeing Rees in that makeup that significantly aids a reader's understanding of "Titus Andronicus" as a subject, and that's the point that "keep" proponents miss. It doesn't matter if the images are useful or make a point better than text would. To use a non-free image, you have to demonstrate that using the free alternative would significantly hinder understanding. I don't think you can make that argument about File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg. Crossing WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 is generally difficult.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. But to quote what was said when this image was originally up for deletion: "This image of Lavinia, in many ways, is the play. An image like this is vital to an understanding of how the work is seen today." I didn't say that, another user did. And I would agree with it. However, I do see what you mean. Just out of curiosity though, what do you mean when you say "Crossing WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 is generally difficult." I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Bertaut (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking faster than I typed. How about "Crossing the threshold of necessity mandated by WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 is generally difficult."—Kww(talk) 23:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha. "Thinking faster than I typed". I usually do the opposite and then have to read back to myself what I've typed for it to make any sense to me! I thought that's what you meant, just wanted to be sure you weren't referring to some kind of bizarre Ghostbusters "crossing the streams" type situation! Bertaut (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

So what exactly happens now, when the block is lifted tomorrow? Bertaut (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the facts that have been established, (The files in question can be replaced, not easily but certainly doable), the files need to stay out of the article for failing WP:NFCC#1. Werieth (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone care to answer who doesn't live in Werithland. Kww perhaps? "Given the facts that have been established" You do make me laugh Werith. Bertaut (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Werieth is correct. His challenge on NFCC grounds is solid, and that means the images should not be reinserted.—Kww(talk) 22:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well there's an admin in the section above who disagrees with you. According to his reading, three of the disputed images are acceptable. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's true that TParis misanalyzed the situation with the images, and fell into the trap of believing that having discussion in the article was an automatic justification. He has not, however, demonstrated what understanding of Titus Andronicus would be difficult to achieve given textual explanations.—Kww(talk) 04:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, I wasn't making a judgement call at all on content. I was only explaining why no one was blocked. When it comes to content, I'm just as subject to consensus as everyone else. Admins are not special.--v/r - TP 13:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits October 2015

In the Language section I wrote the interpretation of the action Titus took upon Tamora, and that action being imposed the same way through unwanted bodily violence. Meaning that just how Tamora forced her sons to rape Lavinia Ttius forced her to eat her sons. Tamora is seen as have being raped (figuratively) just as Lavinia actually was. Mkoggeusf (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In the authorship section I added the sentence “However, it is important to keep in mind that Shakespeare favored experimentation and ‘refused to be pegged down to a single style.’” because I thought it helped the flow of the paragraph and briefly touches upon why it is so difficult to determine whether or not he is the author. Racquel-ortega (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Synopsis section I added that Titus lost twenty-one sons during the war with Goths because I think this will highlight his hatred over Tamora and the Goths. I also edited the sentence which said "Aaron kills the midwife and the nurse" to "Aaron kills the nurse to keep the race of the child a secret" because in Tituse Andronicus there is nothing indicated that Aaron kills the midwife. LinhMao94 (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In Language section I added "The other significant motif in Titus Andronicus is metaphor related to violence. "The world of Titus is not simply one of meaningless acts of random violence but rather one in which language engenders violence and violence is done to language through the distance between word and thing, between metaphor and what it represents."" This is a motif that make up the special language in Titus so I think it should be included. LinhMao94 (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In the Synopsis section I corrected grammar mistakes and clarified information. Most of the edits were to maintain parallelism and to provide transitions so that the sentences flowed more smoothly. Racquel-ortega (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In the Date Section I mentioned briefly on the printings of Titus that eventually led to the ridicule of the play and the irrelevancy of Titus past the 17th century. I also mentioned that the play regained popularity back in the mid twentieth century. Mkoggeusf (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A helpful outlook of the Wikipedia page as well as some confusing situations that went on in the writing

[Section heading added by: Xover (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)]

In the beginning they sound very neutral on the situation however some of the information sounds unclear or it’s complicated to really see where the information is being derived. The rest of the Wikipedia just appeared to be a summary of the book and the analysis of where some certain principles or acts came from. Bringing in the information from other historic texts or from older books shake spear had written. Titus Andronicus page was portrayed as a lot of keeping with the continuity of the time and themes/motifs that appear frequent in early writing. The actual printing date or publishing date for Titus Andronicus remains a mystery though. With many different scholars contradicting one another and going back and forth on when it was represented as a popular play it becomes very unsure and confusing. 75.114.76.106 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

==This article is very thorough and includes a lot of information. Some parts of the article though seem unnecessary or contradictory to other parts, and it could be made easier to understand by straightening through those parts. I read through the talk page and saw a lot of arguments throughout the page by fellow contributors over the years, so I understand this is not your faults. Other than that though, all of contributions and editing made by my fellow peers was helpful and made the article the best it could be. Rummens97 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Very informative and organized. Nice that it has sections for the characters, the history of the play, a lot of photos and enhance the article, and even samples from the original text. There is however a lot of arguing in the Talk page about certain aspects of the article. Some sentences do seem to contradict each other and for a person who has not read the play, this article might seem too overwhelming. Maybe some sections are unnecessary. Removing some aspects to the article might improve it or having them as a link, like Theme is, can improve the article and make it shorter and easier to follow. Overall very informative but unnecessarily long.Maricarmen garciaramos (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources section

I find the term "sources" to be used very loosely in the section. To me it seems lack of a better term. I think something along the lines of Historical and literature influences or foundations would more precisely describe the section. Also, the important section regarding themes is a bit hidden. An important part of Shakespearian writings is the themes, I don't think it would hurt to make the themes section more than just a hyper link to another page. Adding a short paragraph summarizing the themes would definitely help. Jmirto95 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the themes section, I agree in theory; a short paragraph or two summarising the stand-alone article wouldn't be a bad idea. In fact, when I originally wrote this article, I had a small summary section. The reason I removed it is length. The article is already very long, and adding more material which would essentially simply be a conflation of another article could be construed as adding unnecessary material. Additionally, one of the benefits of not having a summary is that a reader interested in themes will jump to the "Themes" section, see the link, and go straight there without having to read material that is only going to be elaborated upon when he or she gets to the main article. However, having said all that, if you want to add a small paragraph or two, go ahead. Just don't forget to reference it. As for the "Sources" section. That's just the Shakespeare article standardisation. All the articles have a sources sections irrespective of the nature of the sources, be they very specific literary antecedents such as Romeo and Juliet, vague possibilities such as The Taming of the Shrew, mythology and ancient history such as Titus or more recent English history such as the Henry VI plays. "Sources" is simply the standard term we use. Bertaut (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

South Park

The South Park episode mention is sourced and shows how the play is still relevant to today's culture. If the removers want to start a RFC that is fine but until that happens removal is against the current WP:CONSENSUS. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How much of Shakespeare's work was included in the show? I suspect it was actually significantly less than a fraction of 1%, which makes it of negligible worth in terms of reference to Shakespeare's play. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It was quite a bit more than 1%. In fact it was central to the whole revenge aspect the episode. MarnetteD|Talk 21:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The source is in a collection of critical essays and meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. MarnetteD|Talk 22:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty central to things. In any case, assigning numerical values is irrelevant. What's at issue here is threshold for inclusion, and on Wikipedia that threshold is verifiability. There are numerous scholars who have written about this episode not just as alluding to the play or borrowing from it slightly, but as being a direct adaptation. See for example,

Keith M. Booker, "You Can't Do That on Television: The Animated Satire of South Park", in Drawn to Television: Prime-Time Animation from The Flintstones to Family Guy (2006)

Anne Gossage, "'Yon Fart Doth Smell of Elderberries Sweet': South Park and Shakespeare", in The Deep End of South Park: Critical Essays on Television's Shocking Cartoon Series (2009)

Fran Teague, "Shakespeare and America", in The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare (2012)

All of these critics engage with the episode as an adaptation of Shakespeare in a scholarly sense, so it warrants inclusion here (as per my comment above about the threshold). Whether I or anyone else think these scholars are correct is neither here nor there. Unless someone writes an essay challenging their arguments, or unless one of the creators of South Park comes out and says the episode was not based on the play (unlikely given how much Parker and Stone love their Shakespeare), then the fact is that scholarly opinion is that this episode is indeed based on Titus Andronicus, and as such, it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Bertaut (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Considerably more? That is an exaggeration at best. Per, [[WP:INFO] WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because a popular show does a parody of a work does not mean it is of significance to the original work. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No one used the term "considerably". This is not an indiscriminate mention and the sources provided back that up. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for the items removal. MarnetteD|Talk 22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for misquoting you, though the difference between "quite a bit" and "considerably" in this context is pedantic. My objection is on the basis of relevance, so your claim on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is nonsense. You still have made no case to demonstrate the show is of any significance relevant to Shakespeare's play. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Claiming there is no case when a clear one has been presented is classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MarnetteD|Talk 22:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

To Quote WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "Simply saying something is "verifiable" or "sourced" does not show how it is relevant to the subject or why it otherwise belongs." On that basis you are the one in violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not me.Mediatech492 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little confused as to what exactly the problem is. The episode is a television adaptation of Titus, in a section on television adaptations of Titus. You keep on asking "how is this episode relevant to the play?" Well, why would it not be relevant? Have you read the articles, for example? They posit numerous thematic and narrative parallels. You mention above, "Just because a popular show does a parody of a work does not mean it is of significance to the original work." Very true. But, apart from the fact that I don't fully understand what you mean by "of significance to the original work" (how is Olivier's Hamlet "of significance" to Shakespeare's play text?), in this case, you're talking about a massively popular show which has adapted the play (as per the sources). This is the very essence of why Shakespeare is still relevant today when virtually none of his contemporaries are. The reason the episode is relevant relates to cultural significance, socio-political reconstitution, whatever you want to call it, the same reason that, say, 10 Things I Hate About You is relevant to The Taming of the Shrew. This is what Jan Kott is partially referring to when he talks about "Shakespeare our contemporary." Now, if you're asking "what does it tell us about the original work", that's different. Bertaut (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The relevance of Titus Andronicus to the South Park episode is not in question. The unanswered question is how is the south park episode relevant to Titus Andronicus. The fact that A is relevant to B does not automatically mean that B is relevant to A. Example: The ocean is significant to a boat, but the boat is not significant to the ocean. Shakespeare is popular and culturally significant in his own right; not because he gets parodied on shows like South Park. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you file an RfC. MarnetteD, Five Antonios and myself have all addressed this issue multiple times. Bertaut (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you have all repeatedly made it quite clear that none of you are able to make any case for inclusion here on the the basis of relevancy. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I personally find this entire discussion somewhat gelastic. Five Antonios (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That is your WP:POV and quite irrelevant. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Be that as it may, as discussion seems unproductive and circular at this stage, and as the current consensus is that the offending paragraph remain, as MarnetteD and Bertaut have both suggested, your recourse now is to file an RfC. Five Antonios (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Bertaut (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Setting

The 'Setting' section is rather muddled. First we are told the play is set during the reign of Theodosius and are given the dates of Theodosius I, though the citation doesn't specify any particular Theodosius. Then it states: "On the other hand, the general setting appears to be what Clifford Huffman describes as "late-Imperial Christian Rome", possibly during the reign of Justinian I (527–565)". This doesn't make any sense because the reign of Theodosius was during the late-Imperial Christian era of Rome. No reasons to back up this assertion are given.

Then it states: "Also favouring a later date, Grace Starry West argues, "the Rome of Titus Andronicus is Rome after Brutus, after Caesar, and after Ovid. We know it is a later Rome because the emperor is routinely called Caesar; because the characters are constantly alluding to Tarquin, Lucretia, and Brutus, suggesting that they learned about Brutus' new founding of Rome from the same literary sources we do, Livy and Plutarch." Again, this makes no sense because all these conditions apply to the era of Theodosius as much as to that of Justinian.

Then: "Jonathan Bate has pointed out that the play begins with Titus returning from a successful ten-year campaign against the Goths, as if at the height of the Roman Empire, but ends with Goths invading Rome, as if at its death". This is not a logical argument, because the Gothic War (which included a significant defeat for the Romans, but which led ultimately to their subjugation) did indeed take place during the reign of Theodosius I shortly before the Sack of Rome in 410, and is almost certainly what is being referred to by Shakespeare.

There may be good reasons for rejecting the notion that the play is set during the reign of Theodosius I, but none are given here, and if they can't be found I think removing any suggestions to the contrary would be wise. 2A01:CB04:326:AC00:3DCF:A13C:4A85:ACEF (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)