Talk:Olivia Shakespear

Olivia Shakespear is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 29, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 23, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 30, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
May 6, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 4, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Olivia Shakespear (pictured), mother-in-law to Ezra Pound, was indirectly responsible for supporting struggling modernist writers such as T. S. Eliot and James Joyce?
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 3, 2017, October 3, 2018, October 3, 2019, and October 3, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Isle of Wight Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Wight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of the Isle of Wight in South East England 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.Isle of WightWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of WightTemplate:WikiProject Isle of WightIsle of Wight-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maud caption

(of course feel free to revert) Was struggling with the Maud caption: the circa, the dash, and then the indeterminant "their".TCO (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. Was looking at myself earlier, and thought, huh? Then I was sidetracked. I honestly don't remember writing that caption - so who knows where my head was, or whether someone else rewrote it. Thanks, anyway.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead rewrite

Posted this on 56tyvfg88yju's page in response to these changes:

Regarding the lead rewrite - just so you know, she wrote six not seven novels. Until I find more information about the plays with Farr, prefer to be less specific in the lead. The direct quote, as anywhere else, needs a cite; as written now a the current cite in the lead is not the source for the information you added. Thank you for finding the Diana Vernon information.

I think the lead may need reworking again. Thoughts? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be guided by your own openion, not 56tyvfg88yju's. I dont think he has any crediabilty or currency at this stage. Ceoil 18:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be expanded. Readers will wonder whether OS inspired any of WBY's work. This needs to be addressed - whether she did or no. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it really make sense to you to insist that the lead contains details of things that didn't happen? What about also including a sentence to say that Olivia didn't have an affair with Ezra Pound? Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "insist"? 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, insist. You wrote "This needs to be addressed". How would you suggest that "needs" is to be interpreted if not as an imperative? Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - She did indeed "inspire" some of his work and some readers will wonder about this. This is the legacy of their sexual relationship. I won't have time to develop this aspect. Why don't you do it? How wonderful it would be to have this legacy covered here! 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't have the time to do it, but you do have the time to come here and try throwing your weight around? Plleeezzzz. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have the time to do the research required. I'll be busy away from Wikipedia for several months and simply won't be around. I've skimmed through the material but don't have the talent to put it together. And, honestly, some of the esoteric concepts involved are beyond me (or little interest me) and because this is so I wouldn't be able to do a "decent job". This legacy is a part of world culture and IMHO an appropriate finale to this article. Perhaps developing this legacy aspect could be a collaboration between you and the principal editor? 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs expansion to include Yeats' work - to some small extent. Anyone who is interested can find my notes regarding the poetry in my sandbox. However, this is an article about Olivia Shakespear, not about Yeats. The better way for this to be done properly is to create pages about the poems, with analyses, and link in here. That's a plan that's been bounced around and will happen eventually. In the meantime, I'd like to see the OR tags removed - am at work atm & don't have time to edit. The sentences marked as OR fall into the page ranges marked in after subsequent sentences. Also, the Diana Vernon information is still wrong. In his diaries at the time he referred to her as Diana Vernon, much before 1915. Will post sources when I have time for Wikipedia, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I agree that creating in-depth pages about the poems is one way to go, but here, her influence on his work - and his influence on her work (if any) - can be summarized in a paragraph or two. I don't think this is expecting too much. One does not expect an article about Aspasia or the 'Dark Lady of the Sonnnets' to be nothing more than accounts of their quotidian lives. One expects some info about their influences on Pericles and on the Bard. This article is a chronicle of adultery. You could dignifiy it with a "Legacy" sort of section. The OR tag should remain until the line is cited. It sounds like the your opinion. What makes sense to you may not make sense to a first time reader. Diana Vernon was a character in Scott's book. "In his diaries at the time he referred to her as Diana Vernon, much before 1915." Why don't you say this in the article then? Try "In his diaries at the time he referred to her as 'Diana Vernon', a sobriquet borrowed from Scott's heroine in Rob Roy, and in 1915 he used the name to protect her identity as he prepared his memoirs." 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for the OR tag; the line is cited. It's in Harwood pp. 13 to 16 which is cited a few sentences down. There's no need to cite every single sentence. That he referred to her as Diana Vernon in his diaries as soon as he met her is in Harwood, p. 37, Ellman, pp, 159-160, Jeffares, p. 65, Ross p. 398, Wilhelm p. 15 - that he only started using the term in 1915 is incorrect. "Sobriquet" is not plain English, in my view. At least five sources agree he called her Diana Vernon soon after meeting her, as it was written. The article was written per the sources - not because it makes sense to me or that I don't keep a first time reader in mind, but because that's what's in the secondary sources. I shall be changing that section back. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hi TK, Just few three wonderings, hope not minded...

other women novelists of the period, why not 'other female novelists', the formers is a little off-putting to my ears
mild incest - as in distant cousins, or just 2nd base
"had many days of happiness",[1] but the affair ended in 1897 - did he mean they had many happy daps past or to come (no books atm). Best - Ceoil 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change to 'female novelists'; as in fathers & mothers w/ children (will try to clarify); days to come. No, not minded. Fixing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, I couldn't presume the answers, though Id guessed. Ceoil 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to spend some time with my notes re the incest - can't quite remember all the complicated plots. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Well done...Modernist (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of works

Is there any particular reason why the list of her works at the bottom of the page include two entries (last two) that are out of chronological order? (I didn't read the entire article so please excuse me if the answer is in its content) 216.185.77.30 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing because both are co works with Florence Farr. Which is fair enough, we might distingush after the dust of "todays FA" settles down. Thanks for the spot. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'and' or 'but'

See edit. Also royal(ish) name by marriage, so 'but' may be beter. I suggest thought. Debate.173.15.152.77 (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke Mansions?

The family moved into... an apartment in Bayswater to Pembroke Mansions, which a friend described by as "an uninviting Bayswater slum.

That is sounding very like Pembridge Mansions in Moscow Road, Bayswater, where Edith Sitwell lived for about twenty years, ending in 1932. Might be worth checking. Valetude (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]