Talk:Lady Macbeth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lady Macbeth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lady Macbeth was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
September 10, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Shakespeare High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elizabethan theatre (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elizabethan theatreWikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreTemplate:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreElizabethan theatre articles

Theatre Mid‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intro

I have removed the 2nd part of the Intro due to it feeling out of place. May be it could be rewritten? Chrissmith 11:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A poor mother?

I made slight edits to the text because i felt the line "that she is a poor mother" was strangely worded (i don't think her mothering skills are in question!)

-It's also acontextual, she compares the act of killing her own child to the act of killing a king (who in many ways fills a paternal role). One could look at this as an example of Lady M endorsing standered gender roles, (women deal with babies and men with government) but it's not overly relevent as that was A) the prevailing veiw of the time and B)ment to enforce to the audience the gravity of killing a king, and Lady M's willingness to be so vile. The rest of the paragraph is interesting, and i'll leave it in, but i'm cliping the reference to that line. Bigmacd24 22:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lady Macbeth as Personification of Macbeth's Ambition

It is discussed nowhere in the article the interpretation of Lady Macbeth as a representation of Macbeth's ambition, in conflict with his loyal and softer side, dipicted as the witch-like Lady Macbeth. Though this interpretation is largely disputed, there is a certainly evidence to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PartiyaLenina (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

This article is really far too incomplete. Lady Macbeth is reputed to be one of the most difficult female roles in theatre; from this article, you'd barely know it as she comes off as a one-dimension cardboard character. Crystallina 03:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who says she was a mother?! there is no proof! but i do think .. if she was a mother.. she would have been a disater! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.33.48.6 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is proof, actually. In the text she says she was, and that she knows what it is t have a child at you breast. Also, the historical lady she is based on had several children which died young. Wrad 15:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT a 1-D Character!!!

This is ridiculous. This article needs to be lengthened. I don't have the resources or the knowledge to do so, so I am basically whining about something that I don't intend to fix. But this needs to be fleshed out. Lady Macbeth isn't a 1-D character, she's a 3-D walking masterpiece. She should be treated like one.

That's what I said, basically. I didn't mean to imply she was. Crystallina 16:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Info

"she is the standard template for a wife using her husband to further her own ambition."

Sorry, I can't quite accept this. I see noting in the text to imply that she is out to better "her own" ambition. She is Macbeth's "greatest partner in greatness" and is, moreover, trying to fulfil the witches' prophecy that her husband will become king- because she feels he deserves more, not her. There is indeed a lot that needs clearing up here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.33.111 (talk • contribs)

I second you on your view of Lady Macbeth. Sciurinæ 13:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks very much, Sciurinæ) But I'm afraid I'm still not satisfied. The following:

"She manipulates her husband, Macbeth of Scotland, into committing a series of brutal murders in order to clear their path to the Scottish throne. To that end, Macbeth murders King Duncan, his best friend Banquo, and Thane Macduff's entire family."

is, in my view, inaccurate. She prompts her husband into killing Duncan, yes, but Banquo and Macduff... I mean to say, Macbeth mentions that he is contemplating the death of Banquo after the murder of Duncan, but she is by no means as obsessive about making sure his rival "snuffs it" as she was with Duncan. Indeed, by the time her husband gets round to talking about Macduff (by his own initiative), she is more or less telling him to snap out of it. I did not change the above quotation, however, in case some view the manipulation her husband into killing Duncan as making him paranoid and bloodthirsty, thereby making her the indirect cause of Banquo and the clan Macduff's death. Sorry if I'm getting pedantic here. I don't now what anyone else thinks...?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.33.111 (talk • contribs)

No, you're not being pendantic. I agree with you about the sentence and I've now rewritten much of the article. Comments for improvement are appreciated. Sciurinæ 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags

The majority of this article IS written from an in-universe perspective. The character overview needs rewriting to focus on the characterization, not the plot. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the old man murder his son or what?

In this Wikipedia posting of Lady Macbeth it reads "he has his best friend, Banquo, and his son, Fleance, murdered in order to keep the Scottish throne, Banquo himself having received the prediction that his children would be kings, although he would never sit on a throne. Banquo is successfully murdered but Fleance manages to escape the murderers."

If Fleance escaped the murderers how could he be murdered?

Also, the posting reads like a legal document with run-on sentences and verbosity. The writer hasn't taken to heart Shakespeare's famous line "brevity is the soul of wit" in putting together his/her 'word salad' sentences.

Supracoriolis, October 4, 2008 Supracoriolis (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

I'm finding the recent additions to the article about anti-mother, witch-hood, gender-sterotyping eccentric but have returned them to the page. ItsLassieTime (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're eccentric, but they seem out of balance with the rest of the article. The "anti-mother", "witch" and "gender-stereotype" criticisms combine to 1429 words. The section on her actual role in the play runs under 300. 24.180.57.90 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

You can read the GA review here --Ravpapa (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis needs work.

King Duncan is discussed in the second paragraph without introduction or explanation. Perhaps an editing error.

70.176.32.199 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Macbeth's Father & Marrige

Lady Macbeth doesn't kill Duncan because he reminds her of her father. This article stresses how masculine she is, how she's a witch or a feminist, and it seems to avoid this topic of the father and her marriage with Macbeth - which is one of the strongest marriages in Shakespeare. What other woman's opinion is respected as much?

References: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/macbeth_2_2.html - her father

http://www.shakespeare-navigators.com/macbeth/Relation.html - her marriage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.105.187 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lady Macbeth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114071733/http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Annex/Texts/Mac/F1/Work to http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Annex/Texts/Mac/F1/Work

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Lady Macbeth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per ItsLassieTime precedent and issues with GA criteria 2 and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was partially a copyvio by the banned ItsLassieTime, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, but honestly even if the article was clean I still would have sent it to GAR. The performance history was mostly unsourced and seems all over the place, there seemed to be undue weight and the analyses of the role given the light sourcing, there shouldn't be an in popular culture section, and the original GA review in 2009 was just a quick pass without much looked at. Wizardman 22:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.