Talk:Romeo and Juliet and USS Chemung (AO-30): Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
update infobox, links
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{otherships|USS Chemung}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{|{{Infobox Ship Begin}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Infobox Ship Image
{{ArticleHistory
|Ship image=[[Image:No Photo Available.svg|300px|AlternateTextHere]]
|action1=GAN
|Ship caption=
|action1date=18:32, 21 August 2007
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=152742464

|action2=PR
|action2date=00:09, 21 July 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=226896540

|currentstatus=GA
|topic=literature
}}
}}
{{Infobox Ship Career
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
|Hide header=
{{WikiProject E-theatre|class=GA|importance=|nested=yes}}
|Ship country=
{{Wikiproject Shakespeare|class=GA|importance=top|nested=yes}}
|Ship flag= {{USN flag|1969}}
{{WikiProject Theatre|class=GA|importance=High|nested=yes}}
|Ship name=USS ''Chemung''
{{WikiProject Dance|class=GA|importance=|Ballet=yes|attention=yes|nested=yes}}
|Ship namesake=
|Ship ordered=
|Ship awarded=
|Ship builder=[[Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation]], [[Sparrows Point]], [[Maryland]]
|Ship original cost=
|Ship yard number=
|Ship way number=
|Ship laid down=
|Ship launched= 9 September 1939
|Ship sponsor=
|Ship christened=
|Ship completed=
|Ship acquired= 5 June 1941
|Ship commissioned= 3 July 1941
|Ship decommissioned=18 September 1970
|Ship refit=
|Ship struck=May 1971
|Ship reinstated=
|Ship homeport=
|Ship identification=
|Ship motto=
|Ship nickname=
|Ship honors=
|Ship captured=
|Ship fate=Scrapped
|Ship status=
|Ship notes=
|Ship badge=
}}
}}
{{Infobox Ship Characteristics
{{to do}}
|Hide header=
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=GA|category=Langlit}}
|Header caption=
{{archive box|
|Ship class=
*[[Talk:Romeo and Juliet/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
|Ship type=
*[[Talk:Romeo and Juliet/Archive 2|Archive 2]]}}
|Ship displacement= {{convert|7470|LT|t|0|lk=on|abbr=on}} light<br /> {{convert|24830|LT|t|0|abbr=on}} full load

|Ship length={{convert|553|ft|m|abbr=on}}
== citation needed tag ==
|Ship beam={{convert|75|ft|m|abbr=on}}

|Ship height=
I know that our citation needed tag is on a fact from Halio's book. That means that the ref is available in the history of this article. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 21:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
|Ship draft={{convert|32|ft|4|in|m|abbr=on}}
:In the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romeo_and_Juliet&oldid=152742464 GA version], the bit about the "down-to-earth Romeo" etc. isn't cited directly, but the next citation is indeed from Halio, pages 104 and 105. Could this be where it is from? -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 02:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
|Ship depth=
::Yes, that's it. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
|Ship propulsion=Twin screws, {{convert|30400|shp|0|abbr=on}}<br />Steam (600psi), [[Fuel oil# Bunker fuel|NSFO]]
:::Fixed. :) -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 03:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
|Ship speed={{convert|18|kn|mph km/h|lk=on}}

|Ship range=
== Better or Best? ==
|Ship endurance=

|Ship capacity=
''Though critics have picked apart many weak points in Romeo and Juliet since the play's first writing, it is still regarded by most as one of Shakespeare's '''better''' plays''
|Ship complement=304

|Ship sensors=
Is the word "best" to be used here instead of the word "better"? Something like that:
|Ship EW=

|Ship armament=• 4 × [[5"/38 caliber gun|{{convert|5|in|mm|abbr=on}}/38 cal. guns]] (4×1)<br/ >• 4 × 40 mm AA guns<br/ >• 4 × 20 mm AA guns
''Though critics have picked apart many weak points in Romeo and Juliet since the play's first writing, it is still regarded by most as one of Shakespeare's '''best''' plays''
|Ship armor=

|Ship notes=
[[User:Naturalis|Naturalis]] ([[User talk:Naturalis|talk]]) 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
}}

{{service record
== [[Franco Zeffirelli|Zeffirelli]] ==
|is_ship=yes

|label=
Page says, of Zeffirelli's stage production:
|partof=

|codes=
:''He also paid close attention to detail, making sure that nothing which would add to the realism of the performance was neglected.''
|commanders=

|operations=[[World War II]], [[Korean War]], [[Vietnam War]]
This simply cannot be right. I can easily believe that he (or someone) ''said'' this of his production, but a moment's thought will demonstrate that it cannot be literally true. Can it be reframed? Or attributed? What did the source actually say? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 07:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
|victories=
:Oh, the main point is that he focused on realism, trying to make it seem like medieval Italy and not to let the shakespearean language seem stilted. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
|awards=2 [[Naval Star Awards|battle stars]] (World War II)<br/ >4 battle stars (Korea)

}}
I'm a bit worried by the logical flow of the section, also. Here is is in full:
|}

'''USS ''Chemung'' (AO-30)''', a [[Cimarron class oiler (1939)|''Cimarron''-class]] [[fleet replenishment oiler]] serving in the [[United States Navy]], was the second ship named for the [[Chemung River]] in [[New York State]].
:''[[John Gielgud]]'s [[Noël Coward Theatre|New Theatre]] production in 1935 featured Gielgud and [[Laurence Olivier]] as Romeo and Mercutio, exchanging roles six weeks into the run, with [[Peggy Ashcroft]] as Juliet. Gielgud used a scholarly combination of Q1 and Q2 texts, omitting only minor portions of the originals, such as the second Chorus. He also organised the set and costumes to match as closely as possible to the [[Elizabethan era|Elizabethan period]]. His efforts were a huge success at the box office, and set the stage for increased historical [[realism]] in later productions. [[Guthrie McClintic]] produced a 1935 [[Broadway theatre|Broadway]] staging in which [[Katharine Cornell]] had a triumph as Juliet opposite [[Basil Rathbone]] as Romeo and [[Edith Evans]] (who had also played the role in the [[John Gielgud|Gielgud]] production) as the Nurse. Cornell later revived the production with [[Maurice Evans (actor)|Maurice Evans]] as Romeo and [[Ralph Richardson]] as Mercutio, both making their [[Broadway theatre|Broadway]] debuts. [[Peter Brook|Peter Brook's]] 1947 version was the beginning of a different style of ''Romeo and Juliet'' performances. Brook was less concerned with realism, and more concerned with translating the play into a form that could communicate with the more modern world. He argued, "A production is only correct at the moment of its correctness, and only good at the moment of its success." [[Franco Zeffirelli]] mounted a legendary staging for the [[Old Vic]] in 1960 with [[John Stride]] and [[Judi Dench]] that served as the basis for his [[Romeo and Juliet (1968 film)|1968 film]]. Zeffirelli borrowed from Brook's ideas, altogether removing nearly a third of the play's text in order to make it more accessible to a contemporary audience. He also paid close attention to detail, making sure that nothing which would add to the realism of the performance was neglected.''

And here's an abridgement which I hope makes the problem clear:

:''[[John Gielgud]]'s production in 1935... set the stage for increased historical [[realism]] in later productions. ... [[Peter Brook|Peter Brook's]] 1947 version was the beginning of a different style of ''Romeo and Juliet''... less concerned with realism. ... Zeffirelli borrowed from Brook's ideas... making sure that nothing which would add to the realism of the performance was neglected.''

Do you see the problem? We say the most notable thing about Guilgud was his realism. Brook's main rebellion against that was to defy realism. Then Zeffirelli follows Brook in, er, being as realistic as possible. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 12:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

== McClintic ==

''[[Guthrie McClintic|Guthrie McClintic's]] produced a [[1934]] [[Broadway theatre|Broadway]] staging in which [[Katharine Cornell]] had a triumph as Juliet opposite [[Basil Rathbone]] as Romeo and [[Edith Evans]] (who had also played the role in the [[John Gielgud|Gielgud]] production) as the Nurse. Cornell later revived the production with [[Maurice Evans (actor)|Maurice Evans]] as Romeo and [[Ralph Richardson]] as Mercutio, both making their [[Broadway theatre|Broadway]] debuts.{{Fact|date=July 2008}}''

I am moving this here since it doesn't have a source. It can go back if we find one for it. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
:Done. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] ([[User talk:Old Moonraker|talk]]) 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

''[[Guthrie McClintic]] produced a 1935 [[Broadway theatre|Broadway]] staging in which [[Katharine Cornell]] had a triumph as Juliet opposite [[Basil Rathbone]] as Romeo and [[Edith Evans]] (who had also played the role in the [[John Gielgud|Gielgud]] production) as the Nurse.<ref>Bloom (2004: 339).</ref> Cornell later revived the production with [[Maurice Evans (actor)|Maurice Evans]] as Romeo and [[Ralph Richardson]] as Mercutio, both making their [[Broadway theatre|Broadway]] debuts.<ref>Bordman (1994: 129).</ref>

I'm moving this here again, sorry, because it seems to me to have a [[Wikipedia: Don't say boring things]] problem. (Yes, I know it's a red-link, but you get my idea). It's just a list of famous people with nothing to say ''about'' them and their performance of R&J, unless you count the one word "triumph" which is a bit unspecific and a bit of a [[WP:PEACOCK|peacock]]. I've no objection to mentioning these productions if we have something to say on them, though. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 11:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== Peer review ==

[[User:Wrad|Wrad]] asked me to do a peer review of this article. I finally had time to do so today. I've added my comments [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1|here]]. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 20:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

== What problem? ==

What is meant by this:

::''The play is about two hours long,[63] creating a problem for any playwright wishing to express longer amounts of time.[62]

I can't understand it at all, sorry. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::Try it in the abstract, as: ''Plays are generally about two hours long...'' rather than ''R and J is about about two hours long...'' i.e., playwrights have the "problem" of showing periods of time longer than this. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] ([[User talk:Old Moonraker|talk]]) 13:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:::It's nonsense, and Lucking (the cited source) doesn't actually say that (or anything like it), so I've simply removed it. --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 15:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

== Date and Text ==

(Reposting here since I'm not sure how many are following the Peer Review)

[[User:Awadewit]]'s [[Wikipedia:Peer_review/Romeo_and_Juliet/archive1|Peer Review]] brings up a good point:
<blockquote>
I see why the antiquity bit is mentioned later in the "Sources" section, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't come earlier. It is a broad statement and it seems like we are going back in time over the course of the sectoin, which is a bit awkward.
</blockquote>
The section starts with ''Romeo and Juliet'' and then works its way backwards through 16th-century sources, through 15th- and 14th-century ones, and ends up with ''Pyramus and Thisbe'' in “antiquety”. On the one hand, that's illogical and makes it a bit awkward in places; on the other it's not terrible and I hadn't even noticed the problem until Awadewit pointed it out. Opinions? Anyone feel like taking a stab at reversing the flow of time in that section? Or should we just let it be? --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 16:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:I just thought of it as tracing the "genealogy" of the story back from the work itself. I don't think it's too odd. How did we do it with ''[[Hamlet]]''? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

::Hamlet and its sources is a somewhat different beast, but it starts with [[Hrólfs saga kraka]] and works its way up to Hamlet. But that section spends more time on talking about what may have been the sources (Ur-Hamlet, etc.) rather then tracing the genealogy of the story as ''Romeo and Juliet'' does. --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a go at rewriting it to read in chronological order (and expanded a bit on some details, tweaked the refs, and added back the da Porto image). Have a look over it and see what you think? --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Critical history? ==

Moved from the article's ''Critical history'' section:
<blockquote>
Though critics have noted many weak points in ''Romeo and Juliet'' since the play's first writing, it is still regarded as one of Shakespeare's better plays. One of the most prevalent debates among critics is Shakespeare's intent. Was the play intended to be a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate and fortune, or was it a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the ultimate tragedy to which it will inevitably lead? Perhaps it was intended to show how two young lovers become instruments in the hands of fate or providence in uniting two warring families. Scholars have yet to agree on what the play is really about after centuries of analysis, though recently several have argued that it is a combination of all three.<ref name="ShakeCrit410">''Shakespearean Criticism'', pp. 410.</ref>
</blockquote>
cf. the Peer Review comments by Awadewit. I have no idea what to do with this. As best I can tell it's talking about the themes and motives of the play, rather than its critical history. I'm sure it could be rewritten to avoid the question form, but it feels odd to be ascribing too much ''intent'' to Shakespeare in writing the play. I note the ''Critical history'' section works perfectly fine without this text; perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave it out altogether?

Opinons? Anyone want to take a stab at this? --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 20:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:Rather than using the word intent, just say "what was the play about"? without the question. The fact is, early scholars debated this stuff and it's a big part of the play's critical history ''nowadays'' author's intent junk is a no-no, but back then it was all the rage. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 21:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

::Every time I have a go at this I end up itching to sprinkle <nowiki>{{who}}</nowiki> after each sentence. Anyone happen to have access to:
:::{{cite book|title=Shakespearean Criticism|author=Scott, Mark W.|year=1987|publisher=Gale Research|isbn=0810361299}}
::This para is sourced to page 410 in Vol.5 of that, and the surrounding text seems to be mostly sourced to pp. 410–415.
::::I'm the one who first looked it up and I don't think you're going to see any specific names, nor do I think there should be any. Were talking about summing up centuries of critical history into one paragraph. No one person has asked these questions, ''many'' have, and the source supports that. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 00:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

'''Outdent''' Ok, taking a stab at it:
<blockquote>
One of the most prevalent debates among critics over the years is Shakespeare's intent. Some see the play as a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate, or as a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the tragedy to which it will inevitably lead. Others argue that it shows how two young lovers become instruments of fate in uniting two feuding families. After centuries of analysis there is still no consensus on which is the intent, but recent analysis tends to consider all three themes.<ref name="ShakeCrit410">''Shakespearean Criticism'', pp. 410.</ref>
</blockquote>
Could this work, or did I merely butcher your text? :-)

Another issue here is where to put it. It was originally the opening paragraph of the section, but then midway down we find “''…Rowe was the first known critic to ponder the theme of the play…''” which is a bit weird. Would it fit better right after Rowe so that it reads something like “Rowe started it, and this is what they've been discussing since”? --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::Here's the issue for me. Nowadays, if a literary critic seriously discusses the author's intent or theme of any particular work, they are likely to be laughed out of publication unless they are very careful. These methods are considered more and more outmoded. I'm wondering what we want to do here, then? Do we want to focus on the older "author and theme" analysis at all? If we do, how much and in what way? I'd like to hear from Awadewit on this. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:::For comparison, take a look at [[Hamlet#Analysis_and_criticism|Hamlet's Critical history section]]. --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:::BTW, just judging by her edit history, I suspect she has too much on her plate to be watchlisting this page. If you'd like her to comment I'd suggest dropping a note on her Talk page. --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this is an OR personal opinion, but I find the section a bit embarrassing. The genius of Shakespeare is that he doesn't take sides or offer easy answers. The play is neither saying young love is great and shouldn't be thwarted by a cruel world. Nor is it saying that young lovers should curb their enthusiasm and be guided by those who are older and wiser. Instead it says both of these things, and neither of them, and much more besides. That is what makes it a great play. Arguing that his intent was to tell us "THIS" is just reductive. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 07:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:Actually, Andy, I don't think this is OR at all. I would be surprised to find a Shakespeare scholar who said that R&J was a play with ''one'' theme. They usually make more subtle arguments than that. If the section could reflect this idea better--that the play is about many things and different scholars have chosen to emphasize different themes--I think it would be better. There are reasons that certain scholars have focused on particular themes - if those could be uncovered and explained, it would be even better. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah, the reason the section sounds silly and reductive is because most of it is from older literary critics following older literary theory. Basically from back in the day when people really did make unsustainable arguments about the author's sole intent of the piece of of the one theme that they saw as representing the whole work. Those arguments just don't hold up anymore. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'''Outdent:''' Ok, another try then:
<blockquote>
One of the most prevalent debates among early critics was that of Shakespeare's intent. Some saw the play as a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate, or as a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the tragedy to which it will inevitably lead. Others argued that it shows two young lovers as instruments of fate in uniting two feuding families. After centuries of analysis there is still no consensus on which is the intent, but recent analysis tends to consider individual themes and avoid ascribing one over-arching "meaning" to the play.
</blockquote>
Does that sit better? Or are we leaning towards leaving this bit out altogether? --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 13:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:I've got a tweak on your tweak, mostly to do with overuse of "it":
<blockquote>
<nowiki>
One of the most prevalent debates among early critics was that of Shakespeare's intent. Some saw the play as a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate, or as a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the tragedy to which it inevitably leads. Others argued that the play shows two young lovers as instruments of fate in uniting two feuding families. After centuries of analysis there is still no consensus on Shakespeare's intent,<!--could also be "the intent", I'm not fussy...--> but recent analysis tends to consider individual themes and avoid ascribing one over-arching "meaning" to the play.</nowiki>
</blockquote>
:Howzat? -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 11:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Ah, yes; much nicer. But I'm still not sure whether the consensus is to keep this (rewritten) para, or to just avoid it altogether. What's your feeling on this? --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 11:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, do all of the ideas contained in this paragraph come through in the article without it? I think so, so maybe we should just leave it be. -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Ok, so far everyone has been either negative to the text, or to its inclusion in the article (that includes Wrad, if I read him right. Wrad?), so I'm going to leave it out and tag this (these) point(s) as done on the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1|Peer Review]] page. --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 12:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== Image issues ==

From the [[Wikipedia:Peer_review/Romeo_and_Juliet/archive1|Peer Review]] page:
*<s>[[:Image:Romeo and juliet title page.jpg]] - This image has no source information.</s>
*<s>[[:Image:Richard Burbage Portrait at Dulwich Picture gallery.jpg]] - Link to source does not take us to image.</s>
*<s>[[:Image:Charlotte Cushman Susan Cushman Romeo Juliet 1846.jpg]] - This image has no source information.</s>

Can anyone help fix these issues? --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:All done. Thanks everyone! --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 11:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== More peer review issues ==

I've done most of the mechanical stuff (some work on e.g. references etc. remains), but the following open points from Awadewit's excellent peer review are a bit beyond me.
<blockquote>
*''Another theory argues that the feud between the families provides a source of phallic expression for the male Capulets and Montagues. This sets up a system where patriarchal order is in power. When the sons are married, rather than focusing on the wife, they are still owed an obligation to their father through the feud.'' - Eh? This doesn't sound quite right for psychoanalytic criticism. I'm sensing that the writers might have had a hard time understanding this material and the paraphrasing might have lost something.

*''They take into account the fact that the play is written during a time when the patriarchal order was being challenged by several forces, most notably the rise of Puritanism.'' - How does Puritanism work in the play? This is confusing.

*<s>''Mercutio's friendship with Romeo, for example, leads to several friendly conversations, including ones on the subject of Romeo's phallus.'' - What? This doesn't seem right at all. It is hard to turn queery theory into readable prose, but this doesn't do it justice, I don't think.</s>

*What about historicist interpretations?

*<s>''The play directly influenced several literary works, both in Shakespeare's own day through the works of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher,[74] and later works such as those of Charles Dickens.'' - Please explain in more detail.</s>

*<s>The influence of the play on subsequent literature seems like it could be expanded.</s>
</blockquote>
Anyone up for taking a look at these? --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got some sources that discuss the queer theory point and the influences point (3rd and 5th/6th above). I'll have a look in the next day or so, hopefully. The first one should probably be removed if it can't be fixed. Historicism is totally beyond me, though. :-( Can somebody else look at that one? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 08:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:I've dealt with the 3rd point, I think. The sources I was thinking of for influences turned out to have less on R&J than I'd thought/hoped. I'm on a Wikibreak until September but I'll be back to this article, then. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 07:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks Andy. Great work! --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Turning to the last two bullets above, my suggestion is that we simply remove the "Influences" section, if we don't have enough decent material to source a full section on it. We can merge anything good into other sections, if need be. The filmic influences are covered pretty thoroughly at [[Romeo and Juliet on screen]]. Goss's article on Shakespeare's influence mentions Berlioz, Delius, Tchaikovsky and Bernstein but all of them are now mentioned in the "Music" section, as are Dire Straits. Goss mentions Dickens, but doesn't make any R&J-related connection. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 07:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

:I've struck two more of those bullets: those sections are now substantially reworked and different.

:On the question of "historicist interpretations", do we actually need to cover it? That is, if we have between us got through reading all the books and articles in the "secondary sources" section of this article, without one of us once spotting something about historicism that we thought was worthy of inclusion, maybe it isn't a significant enough feature of the scholarly literature that a general-purpose encyclopedia article ''needs'' to cover it. (Of course I'm saying this in complete ignorance of what historicist interpretation is actually all about!) [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 12:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::I gather it's a cultural lens through which R&J may have been viewed - like the feminist or queer criticism of R&J, or the Marxist criticism of King Lear. The articles [[Historicism]] and [[New Historicism]] don't illuminate me much further. -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 15:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Romeo and Juliet on Screen ==

We have a [[Romeo and Juliet#Screen|Screen]] section that's 7 paras long, quite a bit longer than many other sections, and quite listy at times. You can just bet that at FAC they'd ask us to chop it down a bit. At the same time, this is a ''Main article'' section pointing to [[Romeo and Juliet on screen]], and that article is both somewhat missing the material we have in the ''Romeo and Juliet'' article, and it probably has enough material to split it out into [[Romeo and Juliet on screen]] and [[List of screen adaptations of Romeo and Juliet]].

In any case, I suspect it'd be a good idea to move most of the material from ''Screen'' into ''Romeo and Juliet on Screen'' and rewrite what we leave behind in [[WP:SS|summary style]] (and, hey, I'm ''itching'' to try out the spinout/transclude trick! ;D). Any thoughts? --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 12:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not keen on the idea of having the "list of..." article, I think that would be a spinout too far. It's a good idea trying to re-synchronise the two articles, and also trying to cut down on the film adaptations here. (One thing I don't really get is why West Side Story and R+J are listed as being very different film adaptations of the story when they're both modern updates of the story...) What's the spinout/transclude trick about? -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 12:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Go take a look at [[Pathology]]. Then view source for a couple of the sections. :-)
::Some genious noticed that the MOS guidelines for the lede section of an article and for the contents of a ''Main article'' section within an article, were essentially the same: a [[WP:SS|summary style]] summary of the topic. In other words, if we make sure the lede for [[Romeo and Juliet on screen]] is good and accurately summarises its topic, we can just transclude its lede into the ''Screen'' section in [[Romeo and Juliet]] and it'll work perfectly while leaving us just one place to maintain that text (no synch issues etc.). There's a ''spinout'' template made to take care of various stylistic issues (lede should bold the first mention of the article's topic, while a main article section should not; the template takes care of this). --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 13:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I hadn't noticed this discussion until now. I wrote the screen section here, and most of [[Romeo and Juliet on screen]]. I'll take a look at reducing the screen scetion, here.

:::Incidentally, the suggestion that anything from the screen section is missing from the main article is definitely wrong. The screen section here is a pure abridgement: I composed it entirely from material in the main article. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 07:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I stand corrected. --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 05:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::OK, I've abridged that quite heavily. (FWIW I don't share your enthusiasm for the transclusion trick.) Incidentally, I don't understand Malkinann's comment: "One thing I don't really get is why West Side Story and R+J are listed as being very different film adaptations of the story when they're both modern updates of the story". They are different. One is an adaptation (WSS), the other an abridged performance (R+J). Is that what you were asking? If not, let me know and I'll respond. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::I've seen them both, (many moons ago) and it seems to me that they're both just modern updates of the story. (although they achieve this in different ways) So why are they said in the article to be both very different? -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 01:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Oh, I see what you mean, it's the last sentence of the lead. I'll do something with it. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 07:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::My approach was to introduce a third, straighter, version into the list. Are you happier with that? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 08:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, thank you. :) I feel that highlights their diversity better. -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 09:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== Johnson on Romeo and Juliet ==

[http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/johnson/samuel/preface/romeo.html See here] if anyone was interested. I have a hard copy with page numbers if necessary. The actual quote is "This play is one of the most pleasing of our author's performances. The scenes are busy and various, the incidents numerous and important, the catastrophe irresistibly affecting, and the process of action carried on with such probability, at least with such congruity to popular opinions, as tragedy requires." And on and on. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Time for FA? ==

Is this article ready for its FA application, yet?

A few questions I have:<!-- sorry, I seem to have turned into Yoda -->
*I see Xover and Wrad have worked hard on the page overall, and I assume one or both of you would want to make the nomination, unless you think a joint one would help.
*I see Xover particularly working on & commenting on the peer review issues. Do you think those are mostly resolved? If yes, do you think this would be a good moment to ask Awadewit if she'd be willing to take another look and comment on whether she feels her issues were addressed and if she has any more? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 08:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

::The issues that are still unstruck under [[Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet#More_peer_review_issues|More peer review issues]] remain to be adressed, and going into FAC with outstanding peer review issues is just begging for a speedy close. So we need to close out those and then do an “internal” review from a ''big picture'' perspective to see where we are (e.g. compare it with [[Hamlet]] to see where it differs, why, and whether/how to deal with that). I think the article is in pretty good shape, but I'm not sufficiently confident to be comfortable going to FAC just yet.
::As for the actual nomination, I'd be equally happy nominating, co-nominating, or having someone else nominate it; and no particular preference either way. For the record, my contributions have mainly been mechanical stuff like typo fixing, tracking peer review issues, and simple copy-editing: credit where credit is due, and I'm due very little of it. :-) --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 18:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I've practically only copy-edited the article &mdash; but I think that Wrad has contributed the most content to this article. But Xover should definitely co-nom ;) &mdash;'''[[User:LordSunday|<span style="font-family:Westminster; color:red">Sunday</span>]]''' | ''[[User talk:LordSunday|<span style="font-family:Westminster; color:orange">Testify!</span>]]'' 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


''Chemung'' was launched 9 September 1939 as '''''Esso Annapolis''''' by [[Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation]] at [[Bethlehem Sparrows Point Shipyard]], [[Sparrows Point]], [[Maryland]], under a [[Maritime Commission]] contract; sponsored by Miss Howard; acquired by the Navy 5 June 1941; and commissioned 3 July 1941, Commander E. T. Spellman in command.
== FA Quality Syopsis ==


From 13 July 1941 until the entry of the [[United States]] into [[World War II]], ''Chemung'' operated between east coast ports and the oil ports of [[Texas]] and [[Louisiana]] transporting fuel oil.
Here's the current one:


==World War II==
<div class="boilerplate metadata mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">
From 20 December 1941 to 3 January 1942 she issued fuel at [[Naval Station Argentia|NS Argentia]], [[Dominion of Newfoundland|Newfoundland]]. Reloading at [[Norfolk, Virginia]], she steamed to [[Hvalfjörður]], [[Iceland]] carrying fuel (19 February&mdash;25 March), then operated between Norfolk and ports in the [[Gulf of Mexico]] from 1 April to 16 May. Following another tour as fuel station ship at Hvalfjörður (30 May-26 June), ''Chemung'' departed from [[New York City]] 20 August with a convoy bound for the [[United Kingdom]]. Two days later {{USS|Ingraham|DD-444|2}} collided with her at night. The destroyer sank almost immediately when the [[depth charge]]s on her stern exploded. ''Chemung'', although heavily damaged by the explosion and resulting fires, reached [[Boston, Massachusetts]] 26 August for repairs.
The play begins with a street brawl between [[Characters in Romeo and Juliet#Montagues|Montagues]] and [[Characters in Romeo and Juliet#Capulets|Capulets]]. The [[Prince Escalus|Prince of Verona]], intervenes and declares that the heads of the families will be held accountable for any further breach of the peace. Meanwhile, [[Count Paris]] talks to [[Lord Capulet]] about marrying his daughter, but Capulet is wary of the suit because [[Juliet Capulet|Juliet]] is still too young. Capulet asks Paris to wait another two years and invites him to attend a planned Capulet [[Ball (dance)|ball]]. Lady Capulet tries to persuade her daughter to accept Paris' courtship. In this scene [[Nurse (Romeo and Juliet character)|Juliet's nurse]] is introduced as a talkative and humorous character, who raised Juliet from infancy. After the brawl, [[Benvolio]] talks with his cousin [[Romeo Montague|Romeo]], Lord Montague's son, over Romeo's recent depression. Benvolio discovers that it stems from unrequited love for a girl named [[Rosaline]], one of Lord Capulet's nieces. Persuaded by Benvolio and [[Mercutio]], Romeo attends the ball at the Capulet house in hopes of meeting Rosaline. Romeo and Juliet fall in love, not knowing that they are on opposite sides of the feuding families. After the ball, Romeo sneaks into the Capulet courtyard and overhears Juliet vowing her love to him in spite of her family's hatred of the Montagues. Romeo makes himself known to her and they agree to be married.


Steaming 1 October 1942 to [[Beaumont, Texas]], to load fuel, ''Chemung'' accompanied the [[North Africa]]n assault force to sea, remained off the coast during the landings, then returned to Norfolk 30 November to resume coastwise fuel runs. From 15 February 1943 to 11 June 1945 ''Chemung'' alternated five convoy voyages to United Kingdom ports and five to North Africa with coast-wise and [[Caribbean]] cargo duty and station duty at [[Bermuda]] and in the [[Azores]].
With the help of [[Friar Lawrence]], who hopes to reconcile the two families through their children's union, they are married secretly the next day. Juliet's cousin [[Tybalt]], however, is offended that Romeo snuck into a Capulet ball and challenges him to a duel. Romeo, considering Tybalt a kinsman to his wife, refuses to fight him. Mercutio is incensed by Tybalt's insolence, as well as Romeo's "vile submission", and accepts the duel on Romeo's behalf. Mercutio is fatally wounded and Romeo, angered by his friend's death, pursues and slays Tybalt. The Prince exiles Romeo from Verona for the killing. He also adds that if Romeo comes back, "that hour is his last". Lord Capulet, misinterpreting Juliet's grief, agrees to marry her to Count Paris and threatens to disown her when she refuses to become Paris's "joyful bride". Her mother coldly walks away from her when she pleads for her to delay it for even a month.


==Post-war service==
Juliet visits Friar Lawrence for help, and he offers her a drug which will put her into a death-like coma for "two and forty hours".<ref>''Romeo and Juliet'', IV.i.105.</ref> She takes it and, when discovered apparently dead, she is laid in the family crypt. While she is sleeping the Friar sends a messenger to inform Romeo of the plan, so that he can rejoin her when she awakens.
An assignment to occupation duty in the Far East found ''Chemung'' circumnavigating the globe as she cleared Norfolk 18 July 1945, passed through the [[Panama Canal]] for service at [[Okinawa]] 17 September to 13 October, and returned by way of the [[Cape of Good Hope]] to Norfolk 6 December. She operated with the [[US Atlantic Fleet]], serving the [[US 6th Fleet]] in the [[Mediterranean]] (12 November 1948&mdash;1 April 1949), until 17 March 1950, when she sailed for [[San Diego]], where she was decommissioned and placed in reserve 3 July 1950.


Recommissioned 1 December 1950, ''Chemung'' steamed to the Far East 28 January 1951 for a brief tour refueling forces engaged in the [[Korean War]]. During her second tour of duty (7 July 1951&mdash;20 April 1952), she supported [[United Nations]] troops in [[Korea]], served on the [[Formosa Patrol]], then transported oil from [[Ras Tanura]], [[Arabia]], to [[Guam]]. She again sailed from [[San Pedro, California|San Pedro]] 24 June 1952 to support the [[US 7th Fleet]] off Korea until returning to [[Mare Island]] for overhaul on 24 February.
The messenger, however, does not reach Romeo and he learns of Juliet's apparent death from his servant Balthasar. Grief-stricken, Romeo buys poison from an [[Characters in Romeo and Juliet#Apothecary|apothecary]], goes to the Capulet crypt. He encounters Paris who has come to mourn Juliet privately. Paris confronts Romeo believing him to be a vandal, and in the ensuing battle Romeo kills Paris. Still believing Juliet to be dead, he drinks the poison. Juliet then awakens and, finding Romeo dead, stabs herself with her lover's dagger. The feuding families and the Prince meet at the tomb to find all three dead. Friar Lawrence recounts the story of the two "star-cross'd lovers" and Montague reveals that his wife has died of grief after hearing of her son's exile. The families are reconciled by their children's deaths and agree to end their violent feud. The play ends with the Prince's elegy for the lovers: "For never was a story of more woe / Than this of Juliet and her Romeo."<ref>''Romeo and Juliet'', V.iii.308–9.</ref>


In nine succeeding tours of duty in the [[Philippine Sea|Western Pacific]] from her home port at San Diego between 1953 and 1960, ''Chemung'' supported many of the 7th Fleet's most notable contributions to the keeping of peace in the Far East. During her 1954&mdash;1955 tour she provided fuel for the ships carrying out the evacuation of the [[Tachen Islands]]. During each of the tours she has served as station tanker at [[Kaohsiung]], [[Taiwan]], fueling the ships of the Taiwan Patrol.
</div>


''Chemung'' served through the 1960s, including service in support of the [[Vietnam War]], until she was decommissioned on 18 September 1970. She was transferred to the Maritime Administration and ultimately scrapped.
It's very good: far better (for example) than the version we had to work so hard on at [[Hamlet]] when we did its FA drive. Here are some of my questions:
*It doesn't mention Juliet's age: 13. I think that's very important for numerous reasons. Shakespeare really stresses it, it's an issue in several early scenes. It's important to the modern reception of the play: its action would be illegal in most modern nations and may raise paedophilia issues (Sutherland mentions this explicity in [http://www.amazon.com/Henry-War-Criminal-Shakespeare-Classics/dp/0192838792/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222629404&sr=8-1 Henry V, War Criminal?]). If you accept the conventional dating, WS had a 13-year-old daughter at the time of composition. I don't think all these points need to be in the article, but I think the age does.
*Not sure about: "The [[Prince Escalus|Prince of Verona]], intervenes and declares that the heads of the families will be held accountable for any further breach of the peace." The line is "your LIVES shall pay the forfeit of the peace": it's stronger than being "held accountable". Not sure what to do with it, though: the prince clearly doesn't follow-through on that threat after the Tybalt/Mercutio/Romeo duel (as you might expect him to do, having lost a kinsman). [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 19:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
**NB:I haven't finished. I'll doubtless add more thoughts in the next few days. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


''Chemung'' received two [[battle star]]s for World War II service, and four for service in the Korean War.
== Afterlife ==


==References==
I think I've nothing more to add to the section which I've renamed "Afterlife".
*{{DANFS|http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c7/chemung-ii.htm}}


== External links ==
It would be good if someone could come along and do a proofread and tidy-up of any of my errors, though, now. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
*[http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/19030.htm navsource.org: USS ''Chemung'']
*[http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/auxil/ao30.htm hazegray.org: USS ''Chemung'']


{{Cimarron class fleet replenishment oiler (1939)}}
:I'm not liking the renaming of the section, as I find it confusing. "Afterlife" might also be the name of the section which goes on about how R&J's death is an example of [[courtly love]] rather than orthodox Christian theology - a theme. -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 09:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


{{DEFAULTSORT:Chemung}}
::You mean "afterlife" could be a discussion of whether they went to heaven or hell or wherever? Yes, I suppose. But "afterlife" tends to be the term the scholars use to discuss this issue, which is why I like it. Shakespeare Survey 49 is actually called "Romeo and Juliet: Afterlife". Has anyone got a suggestion for a term that retains this breadth but wouldn't confuse someone who wasn't used to the term? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 12:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:Cimarron class oilers (1939)]]
[[Category:World War II auxiliary ships of the United States]]
[[Category:Ships built in Maryland]]

Revision as of 15:43, 10 October 2008

For other ships with the same name, see USS Chemung.
History
NameUSS Chemung
BuilderBethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Sparrows Point, Maryland
Launched9 September 1939
Acquired5 June 1941
Commissioned3 July 1941
Decommissioned18 September 1970
StrickenMay 1971
FateScrapped
General characteristics
Displacementlist error: <br /> list (help)
7,470 long tons (7,590 t) light
24,830 long tons (25,228 t) full load
Length553 ft (169 m)
Beam75 ft (23 m)
Draft32 ft 4 in (9.86 m)
Propulsionlist error: <br /> list (help)
Twin screws, 30,400 shp (22,669 kW)
Steam (600psi), NSFO
Speed18 knots (21 mph; 33 km/h)
Complement304
Armamentlist error: <br /> list (help)
• 4 × 5 in (130 mm)/38 cal. guns (4×1)
• 4 × 40 mm AA guns
• 4 × 20 mm AA guns
Service record
Operations: World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War
Awards: list error: <br /> list (help)
2 battle stars (World War II)
4 battle stars (Korea)

USS Chemung (AO-30), a Cimarron-class fleet replenishment oiler serving in the United States Navy, was the second ship named for the Chemung River in New York State.

Chemung was launched 9 September 1939 as Esso Annapolis by Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation at Bethlehem Sparrows Point Shipyard, Sparrows Point, Maryland, under a Maritime Commission contract; sponsored by Miss Howard; acquired by the Navy 5 June 1941; and commissioned 3 July 1941, Commander E. T. Spellman in command.

From 13 July 1941 until the entry of the United States into World War II, Chemung operated between east coast ports and the oil ports of Texas and Louisiana transporting fuel oil.

World War II

From 20 December 1941 to 3 January 1942 she issued fuel at NS Argentia, Newfoundland. Reloading at Norfolk, Virginia, she steamed to Hvalfjörður, Iceland carrying fuel (19 February—25 March), then operated between Norfolk and ports in the Gulf of Mexico from 1 April to 16 May. Following another tour as fuel station ship at Hvalfjörður (30 May-26 June), Chemung departed from New York City 20 August with a convoy bound for the United Kingdom. Two days later Ingraham collided with her at night. The destroyer sank almost immediately when the depth charges on her stern exploded. Chemung, although heavily damaged by the explosion and resulting fires, reached Boston, Massachusetts 26 August for repairs.

Steaming 1 October 1942 to Beaumont, Texas, to load fuel, Chemung accompanied the North African assault force to sea, remained off the coast during the landings, then returned to Norfolk 30 November to resume coastwise fuel runs. From 15 February 1943 to 11 June 1945 Chemung alternated five convoy voyages to United Kingdom ports and five to North Africa with coast-wise and Caribbean cargo duty and station duty at Bermuda and in the Azores.

Post-war service

An assignment to occupation duty in the Far East found Chemung circumnavigating the globe as she cleared Norfolk 18 July 1945, passed through the Panama Canal for service at Okinawa 17 September to 13 October, and returned by way of the Cape of Good Hope to Norfolk 6 December. She operated with the US Atlantic Fleet, serving the US 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean (12 November 1948—1 April 1949), until 17 March 1950, when she sailed for San Diego, where she was decommissioned and placed in reserve 3 July 1950.

Recommissioned 1 December 1950, Chemung steamed to the Far East 28 January 1951 for a brief tour refueling forces engaged in the Korean War. During her second tour of duty (7 July 1951—20 April 1952), she supported United Nations troops in Korea, served on the Formosa Patrol, then transported oil from Ras Tanura, Arabia, to Guam. She again sailed from San Pedro 24 June 1952 to support the US 7th Fleet off Korea until returning to Mare Island for overhaul on 24 February.

In nine succeeding tours of duty in the Western Pacific from her home port at San Diego between 1953 and 1960, Chemung supported many of the 7th Fleet's most notable contributions to the keeping of peace in the Far East. During her 1954—1955 tour she provided fuel for the ships carrying out the evacuation of the Tachen Islands. During each of the tours she has served as station tanker at Kaohsiung, Taiwan, fueling the ships of the Taiwan Patrol.

Chemung served through the 1960s, including service in support of the Vietnam War, until she was decommissioned on 18 September 1970. She was transferred to the Maritime Administration and ultimately scrapped.

Chemung received two battle stars for World War II service, and four for service in the Korean War.

References

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet&oldid=244388997"