Talk:Lover's Leap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Blurb for DYK 2 Lovers Leap Derbyshire 3 Grammatical correctness 4 Layout

[edit] Blurb for DYK

Did You Know...

Why are Romeo and Juliet here? Romeo poisoned himself; Juliet stabbed herself with his dagger. JHCC 13:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Because it's the same concept. Two lovers dying rather than living separately. Different methods, exact same idea. --BDD 13:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Similar idea, but not exactly the same: R & J did not commit suicide together. Romeo took poison when he thought that Juliet had already died; Juliet stabbed herself when she woke from her drugged sleep and found Romeo dead. If you absolutely have to include them, put in something along the lines of "like Romeo and Juliet, preferring death to life apart." Either that, or find a better analogy. "Mutual death" is bad as well (I'm going to change it in the article), because mutual is for something that two or more parties do to each other, not that they do to themselves simultaneously. "Mutual generosity", for example, is giving gifts to each other. JHCC 17:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I see what you're saying; I was only thinking of the end result. That's a good suggestion. --BDD 22:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lovers Leap Derbyshire

There is a huge drop at Dovedale, Derbyshire which is also called Lovers Leap.

[edit] Grammatical correctness

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Lovers' Leap?" There are two lovers after all.

Yes, quite right. I say that after it's off the main page it's moved to 'Lover's Leap'. Unless someone can edit the main page; it's not of great importance but it should happen eventually.

I'm not certain that this is necessarily correct, as it can, of course, be one lover that is making the leap. It's a bit hard to use Google to see which is more widely used, since Google automatically converts "lovers' leap" to "lovers leap," thus conflating the hits, but there appears to equal, if not slightly more, instances for "lover's leap." This, of course, could be people getting the grammar wrong, but I think it ought to be noted that "lover's leap" is a possibility. In the case of backgammon, it is certainly "lover's leap", as it's only one piece that's doing the leaping. — Asbestos | Talk 15:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts from the creator of the article: I am glad to see all the attention. We should add additional information as available. I propose to add redirects from Lovers' Leap and Lovers Leap to clear up any misdirection. I will add mention of these variations in the lead. I think fictional Romeo and Juliet are good examples of both the nature of the legends and example of the fallacy and tragedy such a "romantic" suicide is. Vaoverland 18:47, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have completed the changes as indicated above. The location which is the main source for the article and photo is definitely spelled "Lover's Leap" by the State of West Virginia. If any of the other locations use an alternate spelling, whe we list them, that is the place to clarify that. I would like to see more effort on content from those interested, and less confusion over spelling. Vaoverland 19:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I did a small rewrite of the legend in order to bring R&J back in, but more as an example of lovers divided than of a suicide pact. If we want an example of two people leaping off a cliff knowing that, if the fall doesn't kill them, they'll probably drown in the river, how about the jump scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? JHCC 19:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

Should Hawk's Nest be consolidated with the others below into a "Places known as Lovers' Leap"? section? No offense to the great state of West Virginia, of course. JHCC 19:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that as long as the photo is part of the feature, and the article is not short of space, it doesn't hurt to draw detailed attention to Hawk's Nest as one example of a Lover's Leap. I like the reinclusion of Romeo and Juliet as we need to be sure that the futility and tragedy of suicide is indicated, especially for our many younger readers. Mark in Richmond Vaoverland 20:57, May 6, 2005 (UTC)