Talk:Wolf Hall (TV series)

Anti Catholicism

The section on anti Catholicism is hysterical. Come on people, get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.29.173 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There is far too much prominence given in this article about "anti-Catholicism". Based not on independent verification, but quotes from a number of Catholic clergyman. The whole section make me uneasy and I've suggest we remove - or otherwise clean up significantly. If people think there is genuine grounds to make a claim about anti-Catholicism then can I suggest that it be covered in the article covering the two novels by Mantel instead? Unless, that is, someone can point to details in the TV series that are absent from the novels and which present a particularly "anti-Catholic" position. A read of the section otherwise suggests a fair amount of synthesis and conjecture. It starts of by making the claim that Mantel is anti-Catholic to set the scene, and then includes quotes from a mix of clergymen and bishops to try to support this initial claim. Problem is that the material doesn't really refer to Catholicism - for example some of it talks about Thomas More and the education of his children. It's all rather a bit rambling and repetitive. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Panther306 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC) There is no such thing as "too much prominence" given to any aspect of a debate, in fact the prominence of information simply reflects a particular interest in that aspect, which is precisely the function of a wiki. There is also no possibility for "independent verification" for a particular perspective as a wiki functions to reflect its user's perspectives, some of which will have more support in literature than others, and many of which are materially subjective.

On the nature of anti-Catholicism, it is entirely proper to reflect the voices of many media figures, who have almost unanimously suggested bias in the novel and dramatisation of Wolf Hall. It goes without saying that this feeling of misrepresentation, which comes from historians and clergy alike, should be highlighted to readers. This confusion is evidenced by the fact that on the Wolf Hall novel wiki, one of the first messages is from a foreign user who is surprised that Thomas More is described in a way that disregards history.

The fact that the user above me feels "uneasy" after reading suggests their perspectives are being fundamentally challenged. Panther306 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Panther306 (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC) In an attempt to clean up the section, I've removed the quotes that were 'lumped in' with the original first paragraph (those from Catholic Bishops). This is mainly because it is poor editing and makes for difficult reading if several quotes are presented immediately after one another. I also question whether opinions from clergy belong in this debate, as distinct from historians/journalists, as the controversy surrounding Wolf Hall is mainly one of historical accuracy, not religion. For that reason I've also removed the quote from Mark Easton(?) of the Guardian as he was simply replying to the Bishops's quotes, and not to the matter of historical accuracy itself.

That said, if others wish to present new quotes from any perspective, may I suggest they be presented the way the current quotes are arranged to assist readers. Panther306 (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with having my perspectives challenged. I've studied the Tudor period in great depth and appreciate it to be a highly nuanced period - particularly in terms of religious belief. I've also watched the TV series and I really find it hard to agree that there's much - if anything - in it that is "anti-Catholic". Cardinal Wolsey (a Catholic cardinal) comes across as a pleasant old man and Thomas Cromwell (as portrayed) obviously loves and respects him. There is very, very little religious debate in the entire 6 episodes. Where the problem hinges is on Thomas More it seems. I'm aware that the Catholic Church canonized him a saint (in the 20th century) and that this had as much to do with political expediency than historical accuracy (it was a period when the Catholic church was trying to re-establish itself in England and needed respectable figures drawn from the establishment). Yes, I'm aware that More was a learned man and encouraged his daughters to read. But he was also a deeply conservative figure who was prepared to hunt down and torture those suspected of heresy. He was instrumental, for example, in the death of Wycliff who had tried to publish the bible in English. While I therefore accept the claims that the novel and series use poetic licence to make Cromwell seem sympathetic; I am not yet persuaded that it is vehemently "anti-Catholic" to the point of wilful prejudice. If you believe it is then please make the case. I'm not against a reference but I'd rather it short and to the point. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The criticism is notable, I feel, so I returned some of it. Although, by coincidence, it's largely the same sources I've tried to not focus on it being "Anti-Catholic" so much as historical accuracy or bias in general. This way sourced debates on issues unrelated to religious matters can be mentioned. As for "why here and not the novels", well because the sources I've read have been about the TV series not the novels. And also there might be historical criticisms that are specific to the series.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good solution that can make for a more rounded section, as opposed to the religious aspect which just seems to be a few bishops complaining about the content. This is Paul (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with this. Although I can't help but see the irony personally in Catholic bishops complaining about distorting historical fact. But there you go. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Prithee, what is "historical bias"?

I think a good start to remedying this section (and it is indeed problematical in many ways) would be to remove this meaningless phrase, since it makes little or no sense, is not used in a single citation, and indeed is not found in a single commentary on Wolf Hall that is on the internet: [1]. Perhaps someone means "ideological bias"? Softlavender (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed its titling a bit due to this. Right now it's largely on bias, but I think I've heard inaccuracy things. Although the only I saw was "the actresses are too pretty, or are they?"--T. Anthony (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't help thinking this is being over-played somewhat. It's a TV dramatization of a historical novel. If it was an academic paper produced for a peer-reviewed journal then I could accept that you might refer to concerns about inaccuracy or bias. But for goodness sake it's a costume drama. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Costume dramas likely influence more people than most academic papers. And even if it's silly people very much debate or discuss pop-culture. See Downton_Abbey#Anti-Irish_allegations or The_Tudors#Departures_from_history.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Down with this sort of thing! (Careful now) --Ef80 (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Eamon Duffy

I don't know what editor added the quote from the historian Eamon Duffy. But it is HIGHLY selective. I suggest the editor read the rest of the article and sumarise Duffy's position better. He certainly doesn't seem to argue that the series is anti-Catholic or paint that harsh a portrait of More. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

episode synopsis

• theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/series/wolf-hall-episode-by-episode

Please add episode-by-episode synopsis. This article needs this more than most! The episodes are quite difficult to understand just by watching, what is really happening, what it means...-71.174.183.177 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC) HowardJWilk (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we?

Should we delete Frances Bell as Helen Barre from supporting cast as she never actually appears - in either the actual scenes or deleted ones?81.147.166.230 (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Episode length

As broadcast by GBH/PBS in April/May 2015, the core episode length (excluding credits etc) is 58 to 62 minutes -- apparently the full original contents. This is too long for a standard GBH hour slot (generally limited to about 55 min content to allow time for previews, ads, credits, misc extra blurbage). The extra content was accommodated with custom super-sized program slots, usually about 66 mins. This made the exact broadcast schedule confusing and somewhat unpredictable. Also, sometimes the content was (unpredictably) cut down for the reruns during the week, to fit into a standard hour slot.

101-106 core content length: 62, 58, 59, 59, 58, 58 min -96.233.20.34 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Character names

The last, unintentionally anonymous, edits were mine. I changed some character names to those that appear in the series, e.g. Jane Boleyn to Jane Rochford.--Barend (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Alcolades

Hello. There should be a reference for each nimination and win. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Cooke

Is the Nigel Cooke listed as playing Nicholas Carew linked correctly? There is no mention of any acting work in the linked article. --193.190.253.145 (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

US broadcast

Why is the first US broadcast included in the lead and why is the US air date included in the tables? Surely to include the US air date we should include the air dates of all the countries in which this has aired. How do we have US bias on a page for a BBC production? This is just weird. 146.198.32.122 (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)