Talk:Ruritanian romance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical[edit]

The Ruritanian Romance was NOT a genre of a historical fiction. They depicted actions contemporary to the authors; that the genre has become historical does not make them historical. Goldfritha 00:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operas, operettas etc[edit]

Is this article exclusively about books, novels etc, or can we include opera and operetta libretti? One of the best known examples is the operetta The Merry Widow, which involved people from the fictional Grand Duchy of Pontevedro. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The Merry Widow appears to fall within the scope of the article. -- AusJeb (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOT really - although there may be a kind of indirect link (many operettas, going back at least to The Goldoliers, are set in fictitious countries) this article is really about a genre of popular novel. It is perfectly possible that writers of Ruritanian novels have an operetta in mind rather thn a novel when they conceive their works? Do we need a note in this article about operetta plots? (Have to keep it short and general or we'd be getting off topic - not to mention taking care to avoid the pitfalls of OR). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly The Merry Widow is closer to a Ruritanian romance than a satire such as The Gondoliers. Obviously, anything added to this article needs to be cited to a source that specifically discusses its relationship to the genre of Ruritanian romance. The last thing the article needs is more OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the "fictitious country" and "ruling class/royalty" elements there is very little to tie The Merry Widow to our genre (as Ssilvers himself points out, many ordinary fairy stories have as much as that!) - whereas the Goldoliers has several elements common to later (prose fiction) works in the genre - just to mention the most obvious, the idea of an uncertain or disputed right of succession between two "brothers" (often, as in this case, not real brothers at all, but occasionally twins!) of disputed, uncertain, or mistaken identity. OR of me, but I honestly suspect this is a Gilbertian invention, at least I know of no other, earlier canditate. I must reluctantly agree however that the original article (not, in this case, anything to do with me) neglects to give its sources, and somebody needs to go back to square one and do a proper survey of "the literature" - so that contentious statements can be properly cited. Like justice, verifiability must not only be done, but be seen to done. All else confusion, I suppose. Assuming this particular article is really worth rescuing in this manner at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, we need to to point out that this is an article, as the first sentence of the lead makes clear - about a genre of popular prose fiction. Logical and obvious connections and similarities (in both directions!) between the basic idea of a Ruritanian novel and traditional fairy tales, operettas, children's movies etc. is really another kettle of fish about which we could, I think, make the odd brief comment, so long as we remain aware that they are not actually strictly "part of the subject of the article as defined in its lead". I would personally class "there is a typical Ruritanian villain in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" with "there is a wolf in the story of Little Red Riding Hood" - or even that "Paris is the capital of France" as something that does NOT actually benefit from a reference, reliable or otherwise. Just makes us look stupid in fact. Actually READ the lead to WP:OR Mr. Ssilvers!! It would be quite different if we drew inferences or speculated about causes or consequences, but just reminding people of facts that they can so easily verify (just read the book/story look at the film for yourself!!!) - does not in itself require a "reference to a reliable source". In the light of this - remarks about the Goldoliers probably DID need to go - but the "no references" tag is at best rather unkind. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the tag is to attract editors who may be able to help reference the article. It has nothing at all to do with kindness. What makes us look stupid is having an article that is largely unreferenced. This article really sucks. You didn't write it, so I have no idea why you are (indefensibly) trying to defend it. I have started a discussion about this below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this is a little unkind, not that reference tags are inherently so. Actually have a look at the references that are already there, I don't think, on having a closer look at these, that we are being entirely fair. In this case the odd "cn" tag on a specific point (if you can find one!!) may be more constructive. Especially in light of my other remark above about "patently verifiable, even without a reference" type statements. Without which, incidentally, articles on literary and musical subjects would be impossible. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang...?[edit]

Wouldn't Chitty Chitty Bang Bang's Vulgaria be another example of this genre? --Studio 126 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find a WP:Reliable source that says so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See above. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Ssilvers here. Find a reliable source that says so. Otherwise, it should be removed. "Ruritanian romance" is a very specific genre (which probably needs to be better spelled out and cited in the article), and every piece of fiction, in whatever medium, that includes, mentions, or takes place in a fictional country does not automatically qualify. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reference tag[edit]

The reference tag was removed. Obviously, this article is full of unreferenced information. I have added requests for citations. The tag, it seems to me, is more efficient in attracting a potential editor who might be able to help with this terribly underreferenced article. I would rather that the tag be replaced instead of all the little requests for references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it may not be the best referenced article we've got, but do we really need to tag every (or, indeed any) detail of the plot of a novel, film or opera that can quite easily be read or viewed by anyone wanting to verify it? Do we insist on this with synopses of the plots of operas or musicals? Or that there is a region in the Balkans called Ruthenia? A fair bit of "Paris is the capital of France" in your latest plethora of tags, I feel. As I said PLEASE re-read WP:OR, in particular the lead thereof. It is actually more sensible and less dogmatic than you seem to be assuming. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Other Ruritanian settings in fiction" does need either an "unreferenced section" tag, or a citation-needed tag on each claim, and the citations need to use the term "Ruritanian" in regards to the piece in question. Also, the tagged points in the rest of the article need citations as well. If the claims hold water, it should be no problem to Google the titles (in quotes) and the word "Ruritanian" and find suitable citations. Otherwise, this article is becoming an bit of an uncited WP:COATRACK. If any title does not hold water and no citation is found for it being Ruritanian, it can go in a See Also section. Softlavender (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took Soundofmusicals's good advice and "re-read WP:OR". I then looked at each and every {{cn}} tag, ready to remove any or all that came close to the "Paris is the capital of France" line. I have removed none because I can't see any that are so clear-cut that they do not need citations. Soundofmusicals, could you highlight here which of the statements which carry cn tags you think are in the same area of "Paris is the capital of France"? - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add that I tend to agree with Softlavender in my preference for section or article tags, rather than having to drop {{cn}} onto every line. However, as they are there now, they are useful in identifying the sheer volume of unrefernced material that needs support from a reliable secondary source. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the IMDB is not a reliable source. If something is a Ruritanian Romance, some reliable source, like a newspaper review or book about theatre, film or literature, will say so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration[edit]

If (and only if) these can be reliably cited in the article, they might qualify as Ruritanian:

  • La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein. This seems to be a yes: [1], [2].
  • Professional Soldier (or its source story, "Gentlemen, the King!" by Damon Runyan). Judgement call; the location is Ruritanian, but don't know if the plot/whole is. Here is Graham Greene's film review in The Spectator: [3]. An Australian newspaper headlines its review/notice of the film "Ruritanian Romance and Crime Thriller": [4].
  • The Great Race (the major part of, in the kingdom of Pottsdorf). This seems to be acknowledged as merely a parody of The Prisoner of Zenda.

-- Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book by Vesna Goldsworthy called Inventing Ruritania: the imperialism of the imagination (Yale University Press, 1998). That should have a lot on this subject. There may also be other useful references in the also under-referenced article Ruritania. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula LeGuin[edit]

The paragraph on her is still mind-numbingly long, and unduly so, even after several trims. Could we just make the second sentence very short, without the quote? I'm not personally even 100% sure she even belongs in this article -- perhaps a second confirmation (citation), hopefully academic, would convince me. Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'll do it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the other editor: You can name and list all the Orsinia titles in the Ursula LeGuin article. Also, please learn Wikipedia mark-up (for things such as italics). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Softlavender - Your requests are arbitrary and your characterization of my edits transgress the Wikipedia norm of civility. Furthermore, the previous two entries in this section were not required to have multiple sources substantiating their Ruritarian setting. While I appreciate Ssilvers' help in distilling the article, your comments are neither appreciated nor really constructive. Since my HTML italicizing resolves to wikipedia markup once it goes through the editor, I fail to see why that's an issue, either. loupgarous (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional critical appraisal of Orsinia as "Ruritanian":
- http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/le_guin_ursula_k "Le Guin, Ursula" states: "(It is generally assumed that her two Orsinia books, both set in nineteenth-century "Orsinia", Orsinian Tales [coll of linked stories 1976] and Malafrena [1979] – neither sf or fantasy – are reworkings of this 1950s Central European material, with its whiff of Ruritania.)"
- http://www.britishfantasysociety.org/reviews/the-real-and-the-unreal-volume-1-book-review/ Pauline Morgan, reviewing LeGuin's anthology The Real and the Unreal, says "Many writers, including those who confine themselves to a time contemporary with themselves invent countries that don’t exist. It enables then to say things about society that would get them into trouble of they set the story in a real, named place. Anthony Hope did this with his Prisoner of Zenda where Ruritania was a mid-European principality and in more recent times Jim Crace’s Continent is set in a non-existent place that resembles many a country in South America. The first four stories in Le Guin’s volume are set in her imaginary country of Orsinia." which seems to me to put Orsinia on the same plane as Ruritania. loupgarous (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another Wikipedia coding you need to learn is WP:PING; you must use the code or it doesn't work, and there are other restrictions on how it works as well (mentioned in those instructions). In terms of italics coding, etc, if you don't use correct coding, other editors have to go in and clean up your mess. We can't let it stay that way. Softlavender (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. I wasn't aware that HTML didn't resolve automatically. I appreciate the information, but object to your redaction of my last edit. The Science Fiction Studies article (which, by the way WAS scholarly, as that journal is produced by DePauw University) states pretty plainly that Orsinia fits in the Ruritanian map as well as the naturalistic map. What you or Ssilvers wrote was not supported by the source. The two other sources I gave in my previous post confirm that assessment. I'm changing that sentence to reflect the content of the reference source. loupgarous (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you from earlier in this discussion:
"Note to the other editor: You can name and list all the Orsinia titles in the Ursula LeGuin article. Also, please learn Wikipedia mark-up (for things such as italics). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)"
THAT is the rationale for deleting the citations in question, Softlavender. Your very own request. It was my attempt to be conciliatory and address an issue you raised. As far as the accusations of "disruptive editing" and other abusive behavior, I'll let this discussion and the change log speak for my actions, which were done in good faith. Remember WP:Good faith? loupgarous (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made no request whatsoever to remove any citations from the article. Do not remove citations from this or any other articles. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made those citations myself. You're seriously forbidding me to change my own edits? loupgarous (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal notification of Adminstrative Appeal re: Ruritanian romance edits.[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding false accusation of edit-warring. The thread is Ursula LeGuin.The discussion is about the topic Ruritanian romance. Thank you. loupgarous (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ruthenians" as a source for the reference to the real-life geographic entity known as "Ruthenia"[edit]

The statement "It must be noted, though, that an area of eastern Europe somewhat to the north of the Balkan peninsula, in the Carpathian mountains, is known as, among other names, Ruthenia" has been tagged "Citation needed." In a good faith effort to answer the tagging editor's request I studied the references listed in our article on Ruthenia, I located the wikisource article "Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ruthenians", which in my judgment contains the necessary information to serve as a source for the statement in question.

I did this without a preliminary discussion here, guided by WP:BOLD. I've got absolutely no propietary interest in the edit, please replace it with a better cite if you can find one. loupgarous (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there IS a better cite, the chapter "Transcarpathia: Peripheral Region at 'The Centre of Europe'," by Judy Batt, in Region, State and Identity in Central and Eastern Europe, Judy Batt, Kataryna Wolczuk, eds. pp.155-167. I'll wait a few days for consensus on this before changing the edit. If anyone finds a better cite still, please add it. loupgarous (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted softlavender's edit removing my cite of the Shipman article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia for the following reason:
  • "Editor's summary: Can't use wikis as citations; see WP:UGC. Thatpoint doesn't need a citation though since it has a Wikipedia article. What needs citing is that Jennifer Blake's two novels are historical romances & are set in a fictional country called Ruthenia."
Actually, wikisource entries such as the Shipman article ARE valid sources for Wikipedia articles. That happens to be a major reason for wikisource. Where I erred is not using the proper template for the wikisource cite, and I freely admit that error. softlavender's other points are well-taken and I concede their validity.

loupgarous (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to repeat what I said in my edit summary, that part of this Wikipedia article didn't and doesn't need a citation. The "citation needed" tag was misplaced and I placed it in its proper location: What does need citing is that (1) the two Jennifer Blake novels are historical romances and (2) they are set in a fictional country called Ruthenia. As I also noted in my edit summary, please read WP:UGC. We cannot use any wiki as a citation link in Wikipedia articles, just like we can't use Wikipedia or indeed any MediaWiki source as a citation. The wikisource articles, whatever their original genesis, are publicly editable by anyone; therefore they are not reliable to link to as citations as there is no guarantee they accurately reflect the original at any given time. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Before I get into it, there seems to be reasonable consensus that it is okay to cite Wikisource as a courtesy link so long as you have laid eyes on the original, regardless of other factors [5]. My knee-jerk reaction would be to say that USERG applies, but then I checked the archives at WP:V and WP:IRS for references to Wikisource. (And this essay describes Wikisource as intended to be RS [6].) Upon reading this [7] and this [8] [9], my personal opinion is that Wikisource may be used as a source if the page in question has been verified in the customary manner or confirmed with a scan. However, I also checked to see how many external links there are to Wikisource, and while there are many user and talk pages, I'm not really seeing anything in articles (note: this doesn't always cover sources).[10] I also believe that Wikipedia would benefit from having this matter established with an RfC and having it explicitly stated somewhere that Wikisource is usable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly that we need an RfC on the issue "Is wikisource usable as a source for citations in wikipedia?" And I'm going to restate that my sole issue now is that I believe the guidance in both wikipedia and wikisource is that wikisource is intended, among other things, to host material usable (subject to the usual Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE) in citations to support statements made in wikipedia articles. A template exists for that very purpose. Statements by others in User_talk:Softlavender#Your_edit_comment_on_deleting_the_Shipman_cite_in_Ruritanian_Romance to the contrary notwithstanding, I never said that the existence of this template absolves editors from the usual care to choose reliable sources, assure that notability is present, and observe our other guidelines. When statements like that started to appear in that discussion, it was clear we weren't getting any closer to consensus, and the discussion had veered toward personal attacks. So I went to the next step in dispute resolution, WP:Third Opinion.
I want to say at this point that the issue at stake here is one on which reasonable people may disagree. I am not interested in either reading or writing personal attacks, simply clarifying an issue of some importance to wikipedia. Thank you for your third opinion, and I believe you are correct, and that an RfC is indicated to resolve the issue. Best wishes, and again, thanks. loupgarous (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also Syldavia[edit]

The Tintin book King Ottokar's Sceptre is set in the fictional Balkan country of Syldavia, and is all about a plot to force the king to abdicate by stealing his symbolically essential sceptre. Eastern Europe, adventure/intrigue, centred on royalty, defeating an attempt at usurpation. But no romance (I don't recall a female character at all), and it's about preserving the rightful king rather than restoring him after usurpation.

Searching for sources:

71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using the above sources, I've updated the article. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mask of Dimitrios.[edit]

I’ve read this book, and I don't understand how it qualifies as Ruritanian Romance. Timothy Schrock2001 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional European countries in Japanese fiction[edit]

Can this term be applied to anime, manga, and Japanese fiction in general, which uses fictional countries with early 20th century culture for adventure-political plots? Gundam and his clones, Spy x Family, Witch Izetta. In my non-professional opinion, these anime largely copy elements of Ruritania, such as aristocratic intrigue, idealized European aesthetics from the First World War, and the classic use of fictional countries to avoid political consequences. Finally. it's not uncommon for anime to copy various eras of western fiction to create settings, you can already find gothic anime copying Victorian themes or fantasy anime copying chivalric romances. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruritanian_romance&oldid=1170230022"