Talk:English Renaissance

Needs something about the Romantic poets

Needs something about the Romantic poets, I think. Keats, Bryon, Shelly, Wordsworth, etc. Neutrality (talk) 01:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't they fall too late? I associate them with....well, with Romanticism. It's hard for me to envision the E. R. extending that far....although again, perhaps this is just my bias against the very idea. (Some of my graduate work was as a student of early modern English history, and none of us were very keen on the Renaissance idea, although I was focused on the religious aspects of the time period and likely missed a lot of important related scholarship.) Jwrosenzweig 13:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the Renaissance is usually thought to end around the mid-1600s, whereas the Romantic Poets didn't emerge until the 1800s. The Singing Badger 15:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh. I'm a British history moron - more of an American history person. Neutrality (talk) 00:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, the opening sentence in the article appears to chronologically belie the reference to Milton in the first sentence of the second paragraph. I would accept the dating of the period in the opening sentence as reasonable, but Milton was born in 1608, and emerged artistically towards the mid 17thC, i.e. too late. I am unfamiliar with editing wikipedia, so perhaps someone less electronically-challenged else could do so if they think it worthwhile! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.26.146 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Should it Describe the entire time period?

Based on the box at the top right of the article, it looks as though this article is actually supposed to describe this entire time period in English history...everything not medieval or modern. Should it be? Or should it focus purely on the cultural and artistic developments in Tudor and Stuart England? I can pile a bunch of stuff in here on the English Reformation, but is that what this article is for? Or should this be taken off the History of Britain list, and a separate article entitled Early Modern Britain be written? ANy ideas? Jwrosenzweig 20:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would definitely support moving this article to a new one called Early Modern Britain. The term 'Renaissance' seems to me to imply only a focus on art and literature, whereas 'Early Modern Britain' is much broader and can include religion, ecomonics, etc (as well as covering a broader geographic range). Given the apparent lack of an historical article on this period so far, I would strongly support moving this one and using it as a basis for expansion. The Singing Badger 20:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for replying quickly. :-) I'm thinking we should leave this up for just a while to see if there are other ideas, but if there aren't any objections by tomorrow, I'm inclined to move it, and to change the History of Britain template accordingly. I think English Renaissance links can still point to it, though -- we'll have to play around with the structure. That or we keep an English Renaissance article that deals almost exclusively with the question of if there was one, and then link from it to the Early Modern Britain article where the period is dealt with ni its entirety. Any leanings? Jwrosenzweig 20:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I would begin an 'Early Modern Britain' article with a discussion of the term 'Renaissance' and what it means, so I would say move the whole thing. The Singing Badger 20:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Move the Article?

The more I think about it, the more I'm unsure about moving the article. I think we need an article on the "English Renaissance" and an article on the broader history of Britain from Bosworth Field to Waterloo (i.e., Early Modern Britain). The E.R. would certainly be addressed in an article on EMB, but I think it deserves seperate treatment. Sorry to create conflict. :-) I think the content on politics and government (and exploration) can be moved to Early Modern Britain, and that some of the renaissance content can be duplicated there (with a note to see this article for more). That way the historical article Early Modern Britain can swing out more broad, and we can avoid giving the E.R. short shrift by covernig it in more cultural detail here. Singing Badger, is this amenable? I'm very open to discussion on this. I just don't feel right moving the article yet -- if you still feel that's best, can you tell me more about why you do? :-) Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree--it seems that the content to this page is specific to cultural history, and a slimmed version of it could be added to an EMB article, which would have a wider view of history. Always hard to establish exactly where that line is between too few articles with too much content and too many articles with too little. Happy editing all, Antandrus 21:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think is is a good idea, given that the idea of 'The English Renaissance' is definitely a concept that exists and deserves an article, even if there is another, wider one on Britain that goes beyond culture. Go for it! The Singing Badger 22:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I was bold. :-) What is now at Early Modern Britain is a shell of what needs to go there, but at least it's a beginning. Please, both of you, add to it what you can! I have so little time for editing these days, I'm worried I won't get back to Early Modern Britain often enough, and of course the gaps in my knowledge are huge. I can handle a lot of the religious history of the time period (at least the 16th century), but there's tons more I only know a little about. Spread the word. :-) Meanwhile, what can we do to continue to flesh this article out? Now that we have two articles, I'm trying to sort out in my head how much of politics needs to be here -- I cut it all out initially, but should some be put back? What portions of the political history of England impacted the cultural movement enough to be here? Revert as many of my changes as you like. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't have time to write this myself, but the relationship between literature and politics in the period is important (although it tends to be a matter of interpretation). One thing I know about is the huge number of plays about civil war in the period, which obviously reflect fears of what would happen once Elizabeth I died. So maybe an overview of the monarchical changes should be here, with some notes on the relative stability during Elizabeth's reign and the reactions of writers to it (comparing Edmund Spenser's I Love You Queen Elizabeth with, say Shakespeare's play Queen Elizabeth sucks, Essex rules). Something about patronage would be cool too. If only one had the time... ;) The Singing Badger 15:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Formatted the talk page

I just went ahead and formatted the talk page so it's easier to browse. --Ashfire908 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph contains factual and stylistic errors and needs reconceptualization

This is my first venture in participating in the Wikipedia project. I picked this page to edit because the topic falls under my academic specialty, but I'm still hesitant to proceed, especially since I'm doing this as a class exercise with students.

Here are some uncontroversial corrections:

"Nearing the end of the Tudor Dynasty, philosophers like Sir Thomas More and Sir Francis Bacon"

The Tudor Dynasty ended with the Accession of James I in 1603. Bacon lived from 1561 to 1626. Thomas More lived from 1478 to 1535. I looked up these dates in Wikipedia.

"published their own ideas about humanity and the aspects of a perfect society, pushing the limits of metacognition at that time. As England abolished its astrologers and alchemists, it came closer to reaching modern science with the Baconian Method, a forerunner of the Scientific Method."

"Their own ideas about humanity" is vague. "aspects of a perfect society" referring to More's Utopia has some reference, but remains imprecise and doesnt support the topic sentence of the paragraph. "abolished astrologers and alchemists" should read "abolished astrology and alchemy." But "abolished" sounds too strong to me; these approaches to the observation of nature were gradually replaced by mechanistic views during the period following the Renaissance, but even Newton and Boyle still carried on alchemical and astrological research.

"an increased interest in understanding English Christian beliefs" I'm not sure what this means, but it is not exemplified by "allegorical representation of the Tudor Dynasty in The Faerie Queen"

This whole paragraph, intended to exemplify cultural expressions relevant to the term "English Renaissance," needs recasting, but before I give it a try, I'm curious to see if anyone else comments.

Rudolph2007 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your criticisms are good: please have a go at it. This article in general could use some expansion as well. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As your dates indicate, More lived during the early years of the Tudor dynasty, not "nearing the end" of it. Brandon Christopher 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

I've gone through all edits for the last three months and found absolutely nothing but vandalism or unconstructive edits from anons and just-registereds. Shall I put the little lock on? Does anyone else have this on their watchlist? Opinions? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination for C. A. Patrides

The DYK nomination for C. A. Patrides needs to be reviewed.

Did you know

• ... that Constantinos A. Patrides, the author of Milton and the Christian tradition, earned a medal for heroism for his boyhood service with the Greek Resistance against the German Occupation?

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mention of the English Civil War?

Instead of randomly saying the renaissance stopped at 1620, wouldn't stopping the ren at the civil war or restoration make more sense? In other wiki pages authors like John Milton and Hobbes are mentioned, who were both influenced by the Civil War in England. The social upheaval of the Civil War seems like a better ending point than the 1620s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.42.243 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

List that *might* be incomplete

The section English_Renaissance#Criticism_of_the_idea_of_the_English_Renaissance (at least in this version of the article) contains a sentence that mentions [quote:]

the Italian artists (Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Donatello) who are closely identified with Renaissance visual art.

It (the list in that sentence) does not include [mention] Raphael. Is that because Raphael was not Italian? or, was not an artist? or, was not "closely identified with Renaissance visual art"? Or perhaps because the list would just be [getting] too long, if it had one more entry?

Idea

How about adding Raphael to the list in that sentence? Any objections? Any comments? Thank you! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Renaissance beginning with Dante and Giotto?

This opinion is much outdated. Nobody would hold anything like that today: Dante, Giotto and, in many respects, Boccaccio and Petrarch are altogether Middle Ages... We usually regard Petrarch as a forerunner of Humanism, which starts at the beginning of the 15th century with Salutati, Leonardo Bruni, Bracciolini,L.B. Albert, etc.i (in literature and philosophy) and Brunelleschi, Ghiberti, Donatello, Masaccio etc. (in visual arts). But Humanism is not equal to Renaissance; and as to when Italian Renaissance did begin it's not, of course, an easy matter to judge. The very concept of Renaissance, and of national Renaissance above all, is somewhat ideological. That's why, formerly, someone would like to make the Renaissance begin with Dante and Giotto at all costs.

I've trimmed & moved that bit - we don't need to make debatable points about Italy here. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Article rollback

On a few occasions between 2021 and 2024 this article received a large number of edits from IPs and a sock account User:Victorianbe2, evading the ban of User:Lam312321321, a user whose socks have knowingly adding copyrighted text to articles. Some of this content was reverted at the time and some wasn't.

I've now rolled this article back to how it stood on 4 March 2021‎, then gone through and reapplied all subsequent edits which weren't made by a blocked IP or sock account (skipping some bot type cleanup, and edits to content which had been added as block evasion). The diff is this one, if anyone wants to check it. Belbury (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have consensus for this from other Wikipedians? A bold revert is quite risky. As Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets says, any typos or small fixes by banned stockpuppet masters can stay. I think removing content published three years ago is very bold and unwise. You also have no evidence that many of those edits were made by User:Lam312321321. 84.71.150.54 (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The account and IPs were all confirmed and blocked at WP:SPI.

There are no edit summaries, and I'm not seeing any "obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism" worth retaining under WP:BE in there, just a blocked user adding a lot of text and deleting a little, and trying to avoid any scrutiny or contextualisation of those changes by making them from IPs and sock accounts, rather than requesting an unblock of their main account. It would be more unwise to leave that kind of content in place. Belbury (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I do see your points, indeed, it's important any copyright issues are laid bare and removed, but I still think this bold revert is very risky. I would personally instead examine & analyse the recent version, and remove any copyright problems slowly. I'm not sure if a big bold revert in this manner follows the normal protocol and would suggest seeking consensus and talking with an administrator. 84.71.150.54 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Reading the edit history, I have noticed many IPs are actually not banned at all. A fair amount are, but there are a lot of IPs which are not banned nor under any SPI Investigation. Unless those IP accounts are proven to be a stockpuppet master under an investigation, proven to be so by a clerk, I do not believe they should be reverted all together like this, in one big bold revert, with not much care gone into. That does not follow normal protocol and is unwise.

I am tagging administrators to have a look into this matter and to have their say on it.

@Courcelles

@User:Vanjagenije

@User:EdJohnston 84.71.150.54 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't revert edits from all IPs, only those blocked for block evasion (all in the 2a0a:ef40 range, I think). Belbury (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Rather reluctantly (because the content wasn't bad at all, & the article needs similar material) I support the rollback. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I had also been following. I read the edits and thought the quality was pretty good, mostly, but if there are copyright violations - and they *did* kind of read that way, to me, having seen this sort of thing hundreds of times before, and if was a banned user - I too support the rollback. Thank you for picking through and restoring the other edits. Maybe some of the bigger chunks can be paraphrased, of course, but that's a lot of work. (What isn't, I know.) We have to be strict on copyright issues. Antandrus (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your views.

I think this version by User:Dan100 is a good starting point and a better bold revert. We could always check each segment to chop out any copyright issues. I think this version is better, has more cites, has more academia, and is more broad. If we come to a consensus, maybe we could work on this together? 84.71.150.54 (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Anybody's welcome to give the content a close review for past issues from this banned editor (copyrighted text, text pasted without attribution from other Wikipedia articles, text which doesn't match the cited sources, talking up or down particular European countries, adding or removing certain political angles, restoring content after others have objected to it, and whatever else) and restore some version of it, WP:BE just notes that Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content, which is a big deal. Like Antandrus says, it's a lot of work and we're all WP:VOLUNTEERs here. Belbury (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)