This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elizabethan theatreWikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreTemplate:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreElizabethan theatre articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
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): Datamna.
An IP editor has twice changed the lede image, apparently motivated by a distaste for images depicting Othello acted in blackface. The original (and current) image and the second of the alternate images are included here (the first alternate is non-free with no valid fair use rationale, so I'm not including it here). I reverted the addition of the first alternate image, primarily because it is non-free and lacks a fair use rationale for this article. Tajotep reverted the second with the rationale that the change in image should be discussed here first.
While I certainly think it would be reprehensible, in most cases, to put on a new production today with Othello acted by a white actor wearing blackface, the fact is the role has, for most of its history, been acted by white actors. Using the Stanislavski image is thus entirely representative of its history (and Stanislavski is famous, so a good candidate for a lede image). The Stanislavski image is also focused on Othello, unlike the alternates that have multiple characters in the frame, and so is more dramatic as a lede image.
All that being said, Paul Robeson is also famous (though not primarily for playing Othello, acting in general, or any particular connection with Shakespeare), and for more aestethic and thematic reasons it is preferable to use an image of a non-white actor in the role. Othello's otherness is a major factor in the plot and a theme in the play. And though less dramatic, this article is about the play rather than only the character, and so using an image with multiple characters is entirely appropriate. Othello and Desdemona can be argued to be the sentral pivot of the drama (I would disagree, personally, but it could be argued).
Long story short, I'm going to propose that we use the Robeson image in the lede until a better one can be found. And I would like to get some discussion here so that we have a consensus to rely on for the future. I'll ping the WikiProjects and invite comments. --Xover (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
An interesting conundrum. I very much doubt I shall be able to offer much in the way of suggestion, but for what it's worth, here's my one cent worth (I lost the other cent when I was logging in). Firstly, I think it's kind of funny in light of what you say above Xover in relation to the article on the play featuring a picture showing only Othello himself. Fair point. But just out of morbid curiosity, have you cast a glance upon the actual Othello article (as in the character, not the play). The lede image is a picture of himself and Desdemona! No idea why, but I find that reasonably funny. But moving onwards, of the two images linked here, I much, much, much (much) prefer the Stanislavski one; it's a more striking picture, and it features Stanislavski. The other image is very generic, and could be from any kind of theatrical production. The vast majority of readers probably won't know Robeson and/or Hagen (not that that should really have anything to do with it...but the other one features Stanislavski!). Joking aside though, my vote would definitely by for the one currently there now. Finally, could not all of this be bypassed by simply doing what so many of the play articles do, and have the lede image be a picture of the text, whether a quarto/octavo, or the first page from the First Folio. Just an idea. Five Antonios (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Five Antonios: Thanks for chiming in. Much appreciated! Yes, we could certainly use the Folio or Quarto image in the lede, but, frankly, I find that really dusty and boring compared having a good photo or painting there. However, if that's the way the consensus ends up the F/Q images are easily available. --Xover (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I encourage anyone unhappy with the current lead image to go hunt down alternative ones we can actually use and present them here for the community's consideration. I would personally suggest a photographic image of a notable performance, showing either an iconic scene or at least multiple cast members, and preferably a colourful image that draws the reader's attention. A painting might be a reasonable second choice if it is by a notable painter. I would suggest that having the main character prominent in the image should be a priority, and preferably performed by a notable actor. And since that is what appears to be motivating the IP and SPA editors recently edit warring over this, it would be preferable if the image was not of a white actor playing Othello (like Patrick Stewart), and especially not one doing it in blackface (take your pick over the last century+). --Xover (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I am an English teacher who teaches this play and would love to see a black actor pictured here instead! An alternative would be an image of Ira Aldrige, an African-American actor who played Othello in the 1850s in Europe. His success in the role was so incredible, that they had him playing some of Shakespeare's kings of England before his death. There are paintings and newspaper clippings that depict him from the time. You can read about him here too https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/ira-aldridge-black-actor-shakespeare-african-american —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.60.222 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I have presumed consensus with Untitled50reg (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus against doing so. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 20:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Othello → Othello (play) – To most people today, the primary meaning of Othello is the game whose article is at Reversi, but which has been known as Othello since 1971. I find it difficult to believe that despite having been nearly half a century since Othello became the game's common name, Wikipedia's article for the game is at Reversi, which is simply what the game was traditionally called. Georgia guy (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, the play will probably always be primary per long-term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose on grounds of long-term significance. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Weak support proposed move, but also moving Othello (disambiguation) to Othello. If the play isn't the primary topic, there isn't a primary topic since the play is quite notable. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Going by the non scientific method of looking at Google news, search, and image results, the claim that "most people today" think of the board game isn't adding up. Happy to reconsider with more evidence, but right now the case isn't there.--Yaksar(let's chat) 04:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, hilarious never heard of the game, completely fails the "Othello is" test in Google Books by stratospheric proportions. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as ridiculous. Srnec (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Opposed POV assertion, no RS. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Really? A board game's secondary marketing name, that a marketing person picked in reference to the play in 1971, is primary meaning over a play that has been famous, performed, studied, and well known all over the world for over four centuries? A play about which one can count scholarly monographs and critical editions in numbers per year, every year, for most of the last century? For which there are more journal articles then I'd be able to reasonably list before this discussion was closed (JSTOR alone gives me 16,500 articles for the play; 13 for the board game as "othello" and 164 for the game as "reversi")? The play that is taught in everything from highshool to universities, all over the world, and which people write their doctoral thesis on? That has been adapted for TV and film 20+ times (including by Orson Welles and Kenneth Branagh)? A play that has inspired famous painters and composers across centuries, so much so that some of which works have acquired independent fame in their respective fields (and, frankly, would probably also have a better claim to primary meaning than the board game)?Let me put it this way… You're going to have to make some pretty darn impressive arguments to persuade me of this rather extraordinary claim. --Xover (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Neutral no clear primary topic given the large number of uses[]. However the play is likely primary by PT#2 so if a move takes place then move the DAB to the base name but don't redirect to the game. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as clear nonsense. The play has been well known for over four centuries. I've never heard of the game, and there's no evidence to suggest that it's what "most people" are thinking of. PC78 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I've played the game for years but I can't recall the play though I've probably heard of it years ago to me at last it means the game but given the fact that the play comes up 1st on Google and the name derives from the play, that points to the play being primary even today. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. What a load of utter rubbish. To most people today the primary meaning is still the play, as it always has been. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - I might be persuaded, if there were some evidence to persuade me, but I have seen none. William Avery (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Is this really needed? And if so, is there anyone who can do it? Rwood128 (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Rwood128, no it's not needed, neither is it useful. And it is particularly disruptive to to tag-bomb a large number of Shakespeare articles in the same way. No doubt all plot summaries can be improved, but simply stating "erroneous" as a clean-up reason gives editors no indication whatsover of where the alleged deficiencies lie. The template {{Cleanup}} is improperly used, in any event. According to the template page, it applies only to "spelling, grammar, typographical errors, tone, and other similar, non-content-focused changes". MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that was my first thought, MichaelMaggs. I will check and revert as necessary. Rwood128 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I felt, Michael, that the expansion tag added by Untitled50reg was reasonable – unlike many other edits Untitled50reg has made. A quick survey also suggests that many of the articles on Shakespeare's plays are inadequate, especially in their treatment of themes.
Can you reconsider? Rwood128 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Rwood128, Yes, sure: make whatever change you think is needed. I'd be happier though if some reasons were given via the 'with' or 'for' parameter. Virtually all the Shakespeare play articles are inadequate and I'm not sure it helps much if everything is tagged indiscriminately. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Why does this article not mention anything about Orson Welles film adaptation of Othello? 2600:6C50:417F:BBCF:819C:8FA3:CC0E:B7CB (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
DID ACTORS IN SHAKESPEARE'S DAY PORTRAY OTHELLO AS A BLACK MAN WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT? 2607:FEA8:45E0:385A:48E9:1117:B72B:4773 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
What does this even mean?
"Othello (full title: The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice) is a tragedy written by Aaryan , probably in 2022, set in the contemporary war." 67.80.161.21 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
It was short-lived vandalism, now reverted MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
It is mentioned in p.248 of The Satanic Verses that ‘Othello’ is possibly a corruption of ‘Attaulah’. Is this likely to be true? Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This play is over 400 years old and has been performed all over the world in many languages. For a single, recent production to merit inclusion, in the context of this broad history, it would have to be something truly noteworthy, otherwise it's WP:RECENT or even WP:PROMO. I propose a trim.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I reversed your deletion of my contribution because I could not understand why you only deleted the production I added and not the many above. The production was considered important in Australia as it was performed in three languages (two of these local Indigenous languages), the two men who adapted the play are two noteworthy Indigenous Australians, and the play was set in the Torres Strait in World Word II. If the inclusion of this production of Othello is to be deleted then the whole section needs to be deleted. I am curious as to why you selected this production for deletion (as not "notable") and not any of the other productions listed in this section. (My edit is certainly NOT WP:PROMO.) JelloMister (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. To answer just your immediate questions: your edit came after the page came on my watch list, and that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an excuse.
My post, although indeed prompted by your edit, is referring to all the WP:CRUFT that has accreted here—it's not just directed at any one item. I'm proposing a careful sift of all of it. Most of it fails (by a large margin) the WP:NRV guideline: there must be independent sources to show that something is notable, important and of immediate relevance to the topic. Without that, it doesn't have a place.
In some cases there are other pages where the material might be a better fit. For example, a very quick search with the instance you give above suggests that Australian Aboriginal languages#Language revival or, perhaps, the pages for the languages themselves—Kalaw Lagaw Ya and Yumplatok—would provide an alternative home.
Critically acclaimed productions that are reimagined by Tamil, Maori, Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal directors, writers and actors have a rightful place on this page, and should not be shunted onto other pages. NOT WP:CRUFT. JelloMister (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Specifically, a reworking intended as a tribute to the wartime defenders of Horn Island — thanks for the ref — may seem too distant from the subject of this Wikipedia article (that is: Shakespeare's actual play) but that's not my point. I'm proposing a review of the whole 21st century productions section to weed out cruft, as in my original post.
I’ve tagged the section for review. Suggestions from other editors as to implementation very welcome. Particularly I will be trying to apply WP:NRV "significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest" and WP:SUSTAINED "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time.".--AntientNestor (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I've started with Michael Gambon and The Archers. Gradually, more to come.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
A 1998 Canadian play about deciphering a cryptic manuscript trimmed. Suggestions from other editors still welcome--AntientNestor (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@AntientNestor: I very much support a cleanup here. With the vast vast amounts of critical and scholarly attention anything Shakespeare gets, the bar for inclusion is pretty darned high; and since it's been getting such attention for ~400 years the RECENT bar is also very high. Anything in the 21st century is by default presumed to not meet that bar because only the early-century productions will have had a chance to demonstrate their longevity by, say, being included in the major critical editions (Arden, Oxford, etc.) or monographs on Shakespeare in performance or ... films.That being said, there's no harm in leaving a little wriggle room for the very recent stuff of news interest. So a production with a current media favourite actor (personally I'd love to see Kobna Holdbrook-Smith as Othello!), or, say, a rap artist playing Othello, or something that just gets a lot of news-of-the-day coverage even if it will be forgotten in a year or two. We can live with stuff like the Aboriginal production when it's fresh, get rid of it when it drops off the news cycle, and then re-include it a decade or two hence when it (very likely) starts appearing in the literature with some form of significance to the wider field of Shakespeare studies.In other words, I think the more pressing issue is to expand the coverage of 21st-century productions and adaptations with more details and context, instead of the current extremely list-y format. If the truly notable entries are covered in more depth it'll be easier to sort the WP:RECENT additions (and they will get added periodically whatever we do). Xover (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
That's a good point—we can't tell that something isn't going to be of sustained interest if it's recent. For notability we should certainly retain for the time being Chiwetel Ejiofor in 2007 and Adrian Lester in 2017 (because the performances received critical awards), but consider trimming the rest in due course. More context for each production, to demonstrate its importance, would indeed be helpful. Thanks for the steer.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm AndyJones, formerly of WP:BARD. I'm not altogether sure I'm back on Wikipedia for very long, but I'm here today so I thought I'd chime in on this conversation. For what my opinion is worth, I strongly agree with AntientNestor's suggestion that we trim very significantly the 21st-Century section. But the bigger issue, regarding weight, is not so much that that section is too long - which it is - but that the sections on previous centuries are too short (and the section on screen almost non-existent). Since it was me who wrote the first drafts of the equivalent sections at Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, King Lear and The Tempest (the first two of which eventually became featured articles) it seems very likely that I'll have some sources from which I can expand those sections of this article. I'll take a look later on today, anyway, and do a spot of wikidragonning if I can find the time on the weekend. AndyJones (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
As suggested, I did take a quick look through my books and I've concluded there's definitely lots that can be used to expand the Legacy section of this article. There are about 70 references to Othello in the index to The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Stage, alone. I'm planning to have a go at incorporating some of it this weekend - I'll see how I get on. I might conclude that the 20th Century section is too long, although past experience is that that's easily fixed by removing things that are unsourced or poorly sourced, or where the article has nothing to say about a production except that it happened. AndyJones (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Taking a quick look at the stagings in New Zealand referenced here, I see sustained scholarly interest beyond WP:RECENT-ish citations to the details of their staging. This is a bit out of my field, but these academic articles describe the productions as significant to historical memory and cultural understanding in Aoteoroa/New Zealand (quoting extensively for people who want to use these texts to inform the article):
"Othello, which has been utilised in three different productions. This essay will explore the ways in which Shakespeare has been used to depict the New Zealand Wars, as well as the influence that the New Zealand Wars may have had on productions of Othello. The attraction of Othello is unsurprising given the popularity of the play as a means of interrogating the colonialism of the Victorian and Edwardian periods." (p. 91)
"The first of these Othello-themed productions was Theatre at Large’s Manawa Taua/Savage Hearts, written by David Geary, Chrstian Penny and Anna Marbrook. The play incorporated Othello as an intertext and was set at the time of the First Taranaki War (1860). The second production was a staging of Othello (2001) by the Court Theatre in Christchurch, set during the Waikato Campaign (1863-4). The most recent of the three was Downstage Theatre’s 2007 production in Wellington, which was set during the much earlier conflict of the Northern War (1845-6)." (p. 93)
"While the Court Theatre’s Othello was the first Shakespeare production with a New Zealand Wars setting, what really made it significant was the manner in which it was framed. …" (p. 95) "The Court Theatre’s production created a new frame, a back story, in which a Māori boy is adopted by missionaries, taken overseas where he receives a European education, and joins the British army to become a successful general. Played by Jim Moriarty, this Othello returns to New Zealand to lead the Empire’s armies against his native people. This Māori Othello is not the sole representative of Māori people on stage, however. There is also Bianca, a fiery and feisty Māori woman, who ‘questions [Othello’s] allegiances.’18 In this production, Bianca does not have a divided nature like Othello’s and therefore presents a positive alternative to the titular character’s linguistic and cultural trauma." (p. 96)
Mazer, Sharon (2019-07-19). "A Bicultural Dream in Aotearoa New Zealand: (De)Colonising Shakespeare?". Te Kaharoa. 12 (1). doi:10.24135/tekaharoa.v12i1.271. ISSN1178-6035. Retrieved 2023-07-11. "More recently, and closer to home, there have been a number of productions of Othello with well-known Māori theatre artist, Jim Moriarty, in the title role … The Court Theatre production did not ask its audience to turn a blind eye to Moriarty’s Māori identity. Qui te the opposite. It was central to the way the production made meaning, and at the heart of Moriarty’s portrayal of the Moor – now Māori – especially as he gave way to his jealous rage, progressing from wiri to haka, and from English to te reo Māori. Moor or Māori, Shakespeare’s play strips the soldier of his courtly veneer to reveal the savage within. The violent murder of Desdemona retains its tragic inevitability. Othello’s suffering is existential, driven by the impulses deep within his racialised body, and as such inescapable. In witnessing such acts on the Court Theatre’s mainstage were we – the majority of us in the audience who were not Māori – to be provoked to think about our complicity in and the consequences of colonisation? Or were we simply, an d sentimentally, satisfyingly, supposed to be very sad to watch nature take its course? Further, and more troubling: in showing us an essentialised native Othello – not a white man blacked up so that we could see both the artifice and the social constructi on of the outsider, but a Māori man as himself – were we who are, most of us, not that not also party to the naturalisation of the otherness of the savage savage?" (p. 10)
Julie, McDougall (2015-06-10). "Māori take on Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice in Aotearoa/New Zealand". Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance (Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance (2011) vol. 8). doi:10.2478/v10224-011-0007-4. ISSN2083-8530. Retrieved 2023-07-11. Also features the relevant fact that: "In the mid 1940s, Dr Pei Te Hurunui Jones10 translated three Shakespeare plays into te reo Māori, (Othello, Julius Caesar and The Merchant of Venice)." (p. 94)
Perhaps it makes sense to group these A/NZ/Maori performances into a single paragraph while acknowledging their national importance.—Carwil (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
There are two references to "Duberman" but no other source with that author. Anyone know what that refers to? AndyJones (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Robeson is dominating the 20th Century section - not unreasonably as regards the text, although three images (out of three) might be a bit much. AndyJones (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Here are sources which I've checked but won't be using myself, but which contain some great material for further expanding the page:
Howard, Jean E. "Feminist Criticism - Reading: Othello" in Wells, Stanley and Cowen Orlin, Lena (eds.) "An Oxford Guide - Shakespeare" Oxford University Press, 2003, pp.424-430.
MacDonald, Joyce Green "Black Ram, White Ewe: Shakespeare, Race and Women" in Callaghan, Dympna (ed.) "A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare" Blackwell Publishers Limited, 2001, pp.188-207.
Struck through because this is now used in the article. AndyJones (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Albanese, Denise "Black and White and Dread All Over: The Shakespeare Theatre's "Photonegative" Othello and the Body of Desdemona" in Callaghan, Dympna (ed.) "A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare" Blackwell Publishers Limited, 2001, pp.226-247.
Struck through because I have subsequently used this in the article.AndyJones (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Diehl, Huston "Religion and Shakespearean Tragedy" in McEachern, Claire (ed.) "The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy" Cambridge University Press, 2002 pp.86-102, especially at pp.93-95.
Belsey, Catherine "Gender and Family" in McEachern, Claire (ed.) "The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy" Cambridge University Press, 2002 pp.123-141, especially the section "Race" at pp.139-140.
Bates, Catherine "Shakespeare's Tragedies of Love" in McEachern, Claire (ed.) "The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy" Cambridge University Press, 2002 pp.182-203, especially the section "Othello" at pp.189-196.
The whole 19th Century was unsourced, but this information might nevertheless be correct and valuable, so putting here in the hope that sources will appear. These two bullet points are the entire century!
As Shakespeare regained popularity among nineteenth-century French Romantics, poet, playwright, and novelist Alfred de Vigny created a French translation of Othello, titled Le More de Venise, which premiered at the Comédie-Française on 24 October 1829.
Another point which I've removed from the page. One problem is that the link to the source is broken so I can't verify this is what Rifkind says. However even if he does he appears to be mistaken about Ray Fearon, since Willard White played Othello in a Trevor Nunn production for the RSC in 1989. This is an important point though so I will be reconstructing it from other sources:
Olivier was among the last white actors to be greatly acclaimed as Othello, although the role continued to be played by such performers as Donald Sinden at the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1979–1980, Paul Scofield at the Royal National Theatre in 1980, Anthony Hopkins in the BBC Television Shakespeare production (1981), and Michael Gambon in a stage production at Scarborough directed by Alan Ayckbourn in 1990. Gambon had been in Olivier's earlier production. British blacking up for Othello ended with Gambon in 1990; however the Royal Shakespeare Company did not run the play at all on the main Stratford stage until 1999, when Ray Fearon became the first black British actor to take the part, the first black man to play Othello with the RSC since Robeson.[1]
Also, it feels quite strange that my source (Smallwood) used almost identical wording to talk about Willard White as the article previously did talking about Ray Fearon. AndyJones (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's another paragraph in the unsourced-but-probably-correct-and-valuable category. This time the other issue is that this was slap-bang in the middle of the 20th Century section when most of what it says relates to the 19th Century. Don't worry, I'm not just moving stuff here (!) I am rebuilding too, as I can source things:
Actors have alternated the roles of Iago and Othello in productions to stir audience interest since the nineteenth century. Two of the most notable examples of this role swap were William Charles Macready and Samuel Phelps at Drury Lane (1837) and Richard Burton and John Neville at The Old Vic (1955). When Edwin Booth's tour of England in 1880 was not well attended, Henry Irving invited Booth to alternate the roles of Othello and Iago with him in London. The stunt renewed interest in Booth's tour. James O'Neill also alternated the roles of Othello and Iago with Booth.
And another, this time referring to William Marshall. In the article this immediately followed the reference to Catch My Soul so I've not only got an issue with the lack of sourcing but also that I don't know whether it's an Othello or a Catch My Soul that's being referred to:
His Othello was captured on record in 1964 with Jay Robinson as Iago and on video in 1981 with Ron Moody as Iago. The 1982 Broadway staging starred James Earl Jones as Othello and Christopher Plummer as Iago, who became the only actor to receive a Tony Award nomination for a performance in the play.
Yet another. I'm struggling to persuade myself that William Marshall earns a place in the 20th Century history, since he's only sourced here to periodicals, and he isn't mentioned in the indexes of Wells & Stanton, nor Orlin, nor Honigmann, nor Honigmann & Thompson, nor Neill, nor (so far as I can tell) is he mentioned in either Penguin Shakespeare edition. I'll add something back however if I do find appropriate sourcing.
The American actor William Marshall performed the title role in at least six productions. His Othello was called by Harold Hobson of the Sunday Times "the best Othello of our time",[2] continuing:
blockquote|... nobler than Tearle, more martial than Gielgud, more poetic than Valk. From his first entry, slender and magnificently tall, framed in a high Byzantine arch, clad in white samite, mystic, wonderful, a figure of Arabian romance and grace, to his last plunging of the knife into his stomach, Mr Marshall rode without faltering the play's enormous rhetoric, and at the end the house rose to him.[3]
The First English Actresses from the Cambridge UP confirms that Killigrew's Desdemona in his production of (probably) 8 December 1660 was the first appearance of an actress on the professional stage, and this was the production witnessed by Pepys on 3 January 1661. However, of the four actresses in Killigrew's company, Anne Marshall "probably" took the role.[4] Margaret Hughes wasn't mentioned, although she is championed by F. E. Halliday in his A Shakespeare Companion 1564–1964.
Afterthought: as it's far from clear whether Marshall or Hughes took on Desdemona, a reference specifically saying that's the case may be handy: Brown, Pamela; Parolin, Peter, eds. (2005). Women players in England, 1500-1660: beyond the all-male stage. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. p.3. ISBN0-7546-0953-7.
Thanks for this. Interestingly the same point is made in the article Stage Beauty which, coincidentally, sources it to a book which I own - The Oxford Illustrated History of the Theatre at pp.206-207. AndyJones (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
To me, the details of the production and financial problems Welles experienced while filming his Othello in 1951 are a good example of extraneous detail which has little bearing on the play itself. As WP:OFFTOPIC suggests, this is particularly true when it's already there in a separate article.
User:AndyJones makes a good point about "removing things […] where the article has nothing to say about a production except that it happened", but I'm not sure that padding out with stuff about difficult movie financing should count towards this.--AntientNestor (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see anything actionable in this feedback. I disagree that describing the conditions in which famous and notable productions of Othello are made is off-topic in an article about Othello. And I will be adding a lot more of it as I get into the stage history. It's certainly not "extraneous" or "padding". I tend to judge what's on-topic by what the reliable sources are saying about my subject, and in this particular case Brode tells the same story as Rosenthal. Besides WP:OFFTOPIC doesn't really say what you are suggesting (the drift of its advice is more that if you think you are going off-topic you could consider putting the information into a sub-article). Clearly it cannot work the way around you are suggesting, since everything you would want to say about (say) a particular film is likely to be there in the film's article.
My view is that it is the more colourful and discursive elements that make the page readable, capturing the reader's interest and giving them hooks to stay interested, especially where the prose becomes listy. And it is that which gives material for people to work with when the article is proposed as a featured article candidate and the prose needs to polished so as to be engaging and professional. The suggestion here seems to be "just list the facts".
And while I acknowledge there's an element of personal judgement in what to include and what not, I certainly won't be trying to second-guess what you think the limit of the topic is: I will use my own judgement as I go, being guided by where the sources take me. And I've no real intention of joining-in meta-discussions like this, as I go. (The use of "Example" in the heading of this section leads me to think there are a dozen or so other points we could discuss.) I'd remind you that I'm following a process which led to Featured Article status for Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, something that hasn't happened to any Shakespeare play article in a decade. A conversation about whether we have too much detail will be an appropriate one to have if, and only if, the page reaches the point where it has enough detail, and that's a very long way off. But I am working on it. AndyJones (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Replying to AndyJones: It's nothing to do with my own thoughts on what "the limit of the topic is"—I'm just trying to write a better article according to the guidelines. And it's not just blindly parroting the guidelines: Wikipedia's s recommended practices contain sound advice on how to keep articles readable, accessible and attractive for readers. Instead, you’re piling up irrelevance which is burying the material that’s important.
The considerable and obviously thoughtful effort you are making here certainly allows you to exercise your personal judgment but, as only one person's judgment, it may not coincide with those policies and guidelines and may for that reason at some point be deleted (not by me—I've no interest in a two-person edit war). I contend that the Othello article should discuss the work itself, its context, its literary and theatrical significance—the production history is necessary to illuminate theatrical significance, of course. There's certainly enough material upon which to base a comprehensive and satisfying article, without having to make it more entertaining with discursive elements about, for example, a certain producer’s difficulty in raising funds for his projects.
Emphasizing again accessibility and readability in an encyclopedia article, we will soon be nudging towards the upper limits of Wikipedia's WP:TOOBIG size rule: already (at about at 8000 words) it "[m]ay need to be divided[…]". The guideline notes that such a course will “[…]require a consensus discussion on the talkpage.”.
I don’t want to sound too sententious here, but I genuinely think that your hard work here is likely to be wasted, because it will be trimmed back to match the WP:OFFTOPIC guideline.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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): Datamna.
_-_2019.141.8_-_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art.jpg)
