Talk:Watson and the Shark

A fact from Watson and the Shark appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that John Singleton Copley's painting, Watson and the Shark (pictured), was based on a real-life shark attack that occured in Havana, Cuba in 1749?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/December.

Wikipedia

Untitled

Great painting of a dramatic event, and perhaps a product of its times, but what was Watson thinking - skinny dipping in Havana harbour? Pavium 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watson is crippled and lost a leg due to a shark attack. This is a rendering of that attack and a historical painting. Not skinny dipping.Yialanliu (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not skinny dipping, why in the world is he naked? Caeruleancentaur (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he forgot to take his swimming costume with him ! In those days, I suspect that swimming naked was more acceptable. -- Beardo (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason the people in The Raft of the Medusa are nearly naked, in indeterminate rags: it is hard to look heroic in 18th-century underwear. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next, is this painting housed in the national galleria? I know the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston has this painting and I am pretty sure it is the original. Also, the picture info is saying it's in the MFA so I am editing the page. Yialanliu (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also puzzled by this. I saw this painting in Boston's MFA. So, is the article's stated location of the painting wrong? (talk) user:Al83tito 07:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind: while the infobox only lists one location, the body of the article better explains it: "The painting was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1778. Copley produced a second, full-size replica for himself, now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. His third and smaller version, with a more upright composition, is held by the Detroit Institute of Arts. The Beaverbrook Art Gallery (Fredericton, Canada) has a miniature version of this piece, attributed to Copley." Maybe the detail in the inbox should be improved a bit, but other than it seems ok. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 07:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - as so often the infobox destroyed the vital information. I've removed it, & clarified the lead. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text says that at his death, Watson bequeathed "the 1807 painting," but the paintings are all listed as having been completed in the 1700s. ? 64.187.161.41 (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British/American English?

Does Wikipedia have a standard regional dialect? I have been admonished for changing "sulphur" to "sulfur" because British English was preferred for that page. I have also been admonished for changing "aluminium" to "aluminum" when I thought the page was more American than British. (Apparently IUPAC has made "aluminium" standard for chemistry journals.) Curiously, the spell-checker built into the WP software flags "aluminium" as wrong and accepts "aluminum."

But this page is about a painting by an American painter that is set in Havana Harbor/Harbour. Why "Harbour" on this page. If the rule is to use British English by default, I'm willing but ignorant. (My degree is from Stanford, not Oxford.) Are there more Wikipedians in the U.K. than the U.S.? (There are more people in the U.S) Perhaps someone could post a guide to British spelling, usage, etc. forl us ignorasnt Yanks. Perhaps someone could fix the editing software to prefer UK spellings if they are truly preferred by Those Who Must Be Obeyed.

In any case, this merits discussion. donfbreed@attDOTnet.

See WP:ENGVAR. The painting was commissioned in London by its very English subject, and painted, exhibited and long displayed there. I didn't know Havana was American - under the Engvar rules British English is not able to claim say French articles on the grounds of proximity or EU ties. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer following IUPAC's international standard ("aluminium" and "sulfur") even outside of chemistry journals.

In any case, I doubt that it is Wikipedia's spelling checker. It is probably the one built into your browser (web client).

Johnbod has already outlined some reasons why British English should be preferred for this specific article.

Furthermore, for 'neutral' topics (e.g. "clouds") there is a Wikipedia policy/convention that articles should use a self-consistent English variant (not a mixture of multiple variants), and this can be the variant that has been established for that article (typically that used by the Editors who originally set up the article).

Finally, it would be technically possible to create U.S./British and other variants of English for articles, perhaps in a similar fashion to implementation of alternative scripts in relevant existing Wikipedias, like the two scripts available in the Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia: see lad:Astronomiya (page about "Astronomy", using a Latin-alphabet version of Judeo-Spanish) and lad:אסטרונומייה (same subject using a Hebrew-alphabet version of Judeo-Spanish). See Language committee and Requests for new languages if you're interested.

—DIV (1.129.109.185 (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

That possibility [of different versions of each page for each (major) English variant —DIV] has sometimes been raised, but the differences go well beyond variant spellings, & I wouldn't expect to see it any time soon. Oxford spelling further complicates matters. There's also Indian English and a host of others. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that's not something that I expect we'll see in the near future. But then again, the likelihood depends a lot on how much people push for it. If many WP users such as "donfbreed@attDOTnet" demand it, then it'll become more likely. If they already want it, then it's good for them to know where to look to (try to) get the process started. And if the process seems overwhelming and they lose interest, then they may focus their attention on other ways to improve Wikipedia. :-)

—DIV (1.129.111.156 (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Interpretations

Are there any creditable interpretations of the painting? Seems like it may contain elements of the Christian mythos. The spear wielder is in a pose reminiscent of Michael, and Watson representing the naked soul in danger of sin? My own amateur thoughts aside, does anyone know of any critical commentary that could be included? -Vironic Hero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.10.250.80 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An AP US History textbook (Liberty, Equality, Power) captions the photo on page 118: "John Singleton Copley's 1778 painting, dramatically depicting a young man's rescue from shark attack, began the democratization or heroism. Note that a black man holds the traditional central and elevated place of honor in the painting, and that only one person on the rescue boat is a 'gentleman.' In this work, Copley announced that ordinary men can be heroes." It doesn't sound particularly verifiable, but it's an interesting note. music GUY GUY 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing

'One of the characters is shown socking said shark in the face.' Alliterative rather than encylopediac. 86.53.143.254 (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]