Talk:Romeo and Juliet

RfC: about Arthur Brooke's and John Swan criticizing the play

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.

---

Is it possible that Arthur Brooke's criticized the play before it was published - we say he was an influence in this article ? And is John Swan famous for criticizing the play - if so what did he say?-- Moxy (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Background of edit war

I have reverted for the second time the addition bellow. We have two problems with the edit. First the play borrowed some themes from Arthur Brooke and as for John Swan if I am not mistaken he added a few lines to some guys quote. In any case if this was the norm we should be able to find more then this one source that cant be seen (as seen below in the quote box) . -- Moxy (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The earliest known critic of the play, writing in 1562, was Arthur Brooke in his section titled "To the Reader" printed in The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet. This was followed in 1635 by comments from the critic John Swan writing in Speculum Mundi.Harold Bloom (2009). Romeo and Juliet. Infobase Publishing. p. 42. ISBN 978-1-4381-1476-7.

Previous editor has reverted twice a fully cited and referenced addition to this Wikipage without having any reference or citation to do so. Previous editor appears to have a personal point of view which contradicts Professor Harold Bloom of Yale University in his book about Romeo and Juliet, and has no citation to support his/her contradiction of the published and cited opinion of Professor Harold Bloom as to the useful history of criticism and commentary on this play. Therefor my edit is applying a second revert to restore the fully cited and published viewpoint of Professor Harold Bloom. Previous editor should note that after their making two reverts already for his/her uncited and unreferenced edit, that the next revert will be a 3RR violation of Wikipedia policy and that the previous editor has been informed of edit warring on their Talk page as well. Previous editor has presented no citation for their revert supporting their contradictory personal opinion against the published text by Professor Harold Bloom, and the previous edit is restored. FelixRosch (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Pls follow our basic procedure and seek consensus for your edit that has been contested. The sources were placed on your talk page and now below..please explain to the world how its possible someone criticized the play before its written. Let me explain again... as explained in the book and this article. "Romeo and Juliet takes its basic story line from Arthur Brooke's long narrative poem" - this is before the play is written so cant be criticizing the play that is not written yet...source William Shakespeare (2008). Romeo and Juliet. Yale University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-300-13828-3.. As for Swan all he did was quote a speech by Friar Lawrence..source Richard Dutton; Jean E. Howard (2008). A Companion to Shakespeare's Works, A Companion to Shakespeare's Works: The Tragedies. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 131 (note:24). ISBN 978-0-470-99727-7.. Can you quote the criticisms from the book because no other source can be found? -- Moxy (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The text of "To the Reader" can be found here. It doesn't mention Shakespeare or make any reference to his play, which is something you can see for yourself. Formerip (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

The authoritative Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd edition 1997, edited by various academic luminaries from Harvard, Cambridge etc, says about R&J on p.1101:

Shakespeare's direct source was ... a poem by Arthur Brooke, based on Boiastuau and published in 1562. The Tragical History of Romeus and Juiet, 3,000 line of verse in poulter's measure, is a very dull work. But it had some popularity and was reprinted in 1587. Shakespeare adapts Brooks freely, but he obviously had the poem on his desk or in his head.

The author of this particular section is Frank Kermode. It seems fairly certain (to me at least) that the 1562 Brooke work cannot have contained criticism of the Shakespeare play.
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Prof Bloom believes that William Shakespeare adapted his version of Romeo and Juliet from a previous version of the play written before Shakespeare was born, and therefore Prof Bloom published his analysis that the informed history of criticism and commentary about Romeo and Juliet should start before Shakespeare's adapted version from the original version. FelixRosch (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: Interesting - I hadn't realised that. I think he's in a minority within academic circles, do any other RS agree with him? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We could say that the general academic consensus is one way but Bloom's view is different. Best of both worlds? --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Reposted by FelixRosch (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point but we still have a problem. If secondary reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found only at one source, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or may be a part of a fringe theory. Is this train of though published anywhere else? Can you quote the source your using so we can all see its context. -- Moxy (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• The topic of this article is Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. With the exception of The Tempest, Shakespeare's plays are based on earlier texts - poems or plays; however, when saying in this article "Romeo & Juliet" or "the play" or similar wording, then the topic is Shakespeare's play, not any other version, either before or after. If the intention is to write about another play, then that must be made clear. So, "The earliest known critic of the play...." would be confusing if talking about an earlier play, so that needs to be made clear: The earliest critical commentary on the Romeo & Juliet story is Arthur Brooke's 'To the Reader' in reference to the 1562 narrative poem "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" from which Shakespeare took plot ideas. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm with Balaenoptera musculus: Bloom, though I reckon he's generally wrong, is a huge deal in Shakespearean scholarship, so his dissenting opinion from the academic consensus is important. And SilkTork, the suggestion is not that Romeo and Juliet was based on an earlier source - that goes without saying - but that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is a redraft of an earlier play.Thom (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Criticize the play before it was written again?

FelixRosch can you read the article as a whole some of the info your inserting is already there and the other point is disputed. Please read the Lead and section Sources...where we mention where some influences come from..no need to say this 3 times in one article. I am concerned Felix is not aware of the meaning of "critical commentary" Felix pls read the RfC close - Note how its says "to the extent that there is consensus, it is that Brooke did not criticize the play before it was written". Felix your edit here reinserted the text that the RfC close talks about and the John Swan stuff that also has no support for inclusion. -- Moxy (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello SilkTork: Your good suggestion for the edit on Romeo and Juliet I had posted there after the RFC was recently closed out. It looked like the best edit version among the general consensus. A single editor has removed it. Could you glance at this? FelixRosch (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look. I assume you are talking about this edit. It looks like the contents of that edit are disputed, in which case you need to discuss the matter on the talk-page to find out the reasons for the disagreement. I would suggest that the disagreement relates to the way it has been worded which is to confuse critical commentary on Shakespeare's play with sources for the play. Though I gave a suggested wording, I didn't apply it to the article; if I was to introduce that wording or similar, I would place it in the Sources section not the Critical history section. I hope that helps. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Support for suggestion by User:SilkT with consensus. All of the responses to the RFC acknowledged the previous, earlier version of the play as relevant with the exception of one editor opposing. As the one editor opposing, it is up to you to come closer to the consensus represented. The edit of User:SilkT is supported by User:FelixR. Policy is for you to establish consensus on this Talk page prior to further editing. You have no support for your edit. FelixRosch (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Felix can you please stop adding the same disputed stuff over and over and over - at this point we consider this to be unacceptable, disruptive, tendentious, or dishonest. As User:SilkTork clearly said above you need to gain consensus to insert your edits (they are disputed and is why there was a RfC above). If you continue to ignore other editors there will be consequences - you seem to be having this problem on many pages at one time...this is very concerning. Can you take the time to read over Wikipedia:Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community before editing anything again. After looking at your recent contributions I see this is a wider problem, thus i have filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- Moxy (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In line with Shakespeare's original?

This section of the introduction contains an enormous fallacy regarding editing history. The "original" is an enigma and "best" editions are putative and speculative at best. Acknowledge the intricacies of these plays' editing history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.219.30.77 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Weasel Words

In the statement 'Juliet visits Friar Laurence for help, and he offers her a drug that will put her into a deathlike coma for "two and forty hours."' the word drug is followed by a "weasel words" tag. The drug is described as being in a vial, but the exact name of the drug is unspecified, therefore how can this issue be resolved? 110.32.244.59 (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that in the play the term Friar Lawrence refers to what he gave Juliet is "distilled liquor". Later when he is talking to the Prince he calls it a "potion". The only time the word "drug" is used in the play is in reference to the poison that Romeo got from the Apothecary. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is contentious. I have replaced "drug" with "potion" and removed the "which?" tag Spborthwick (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Balcony scene section edit

Under the "balcony scene" heading in the existing article (6.7), Lois Leveen is cited as the first to note that the term "balcony" didn't exist in the English language when Romeo and Juliet was written and that this is a window scene and not a balcony scene. While her Atlantic article does make these excellent points, they are not at all new to scholarship. Recently, both Adam Zucker and Mimi Yiu have written extensively about this issue and the history of balconies in English drama. I would like to see them cited alongside this October 2014 article, as their scholarship predates Leveen's piece.

Citations:

76.19.171.192 (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Emma Atwood

References

Kid-friendly section

Is there a way that we can create a section that would be especially conducive to a younger audience? Kids' first exposure to Shakespeare is usually Romeo and Juliet. I am just not sure if we are doing enough here to be pierced through by a more youthful readership. I am not sure how this fits into the overall mission of Wikipedia but I think we owe it to up and coming generations to try to make Shakespeare approachable. I am just wanting to open up the conversation. I don't have any specific ideas about what I would change but I do wonder if this line of thought resonates with anyone else. I think this is especially topical for Romeo and Juliet where it may not apply to other of the Bard's works.Bhanks (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That is outside the scope of Wikipedia. However, I will point you to the R&J article on Simple Wikipedia: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_and_Juliet Machuvius (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it? My first one was Macbeth as an actual play and Hamlet via To Be or Not To Be, and I have a feeling that generally the first exposure may well be quite often the Midsummer Night's Dream. "Romeo and Juliet" is a household name of course, but precisely because the content is somewhat known, it is not usually read or seen on stage as long as the child still believes that (a) sexuality in general, or (b) passionate love between man and woman, is something embarrassing - which they do until (a) or respectively until some time after (b) they reach puberty.--84.154.4.247 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

81.136.92.25 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC) 'Da Porto gave Romeo and Juliet most of its modern form, including the names of the lovers, the rival families of Montecchi and Capuleti, and the location in Verona.[10] He also introduced the characters and names of Mercutio (Marcuccio Guertio), Tybalt (Tebaldo Cappelleti), Count Paris (conti (Paride) di Lodrone) and Friar Laurence (frate Lorenzo). Da Porto presented his tale as historically true and claimed it took place a century earlier than Salernitano had it, in the days Verona was ruled by Bartolomeo II della Scala (anglicized as Prince Escalus). In da Porto's version Romeo takes poison and Giulietta stabs herself with his dagger.[16]'

Please, note that the mode of death of Juliet is NOT by the dagger: she holds her breath long enough to be able to die. The most reliable source is the very Luigi Da Porto's novella: 'Giulietta e Romeo': 'E detto questo, la sua gran sciagura nell'animo recatasi, e la perdita del caro amante ricordandosi, diliberando di più non vivere, raccolto a sè il fiato, ed alquanto tenutolo, e poscia con un gran grido fuori mandandolo, sopra il morto corpo morta si rese'.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Error about da Porto's version

Hi, this phrase is an error: "In da Porto's version, Romeo takes poison and Giulietta stabs herself with his dagger."

In reality, Giulietta doesn't stab herself but holds her breath to death. Another major difference with Shakespeare's version is that Romeo and Giulietta talk extensively before he slowly dies. I think this should be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihon (talk • contribs) 22:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romeo and Juliet. 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/20140529202949/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/184626-Broadway-Revival-of-Romeo-and-Juliet-Starring-Orlando-Bloom-and-Condola-Rashad-Will-Close-Dec-8 to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/184626-Broadway-Revival-of-Romeo-and-Juliet-Starring-Orlando-Bloom-and-Condola-Rashad-Will-Close-Dec-8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430082837/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/47546.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/47546.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 07:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Olivia Hussey's age

This article includes a reference, with citation, to Olivia Hussey being 15 at the time of the filming of her nude scene in the 1968 Zeffirelli film. However, the Hussey entry says she was 17, which fits with birth in 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerodeconduite (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zerodeconduite: Thanks for flagging the discrepancy. In this case it was the Olivia Hussey article that was wrong, and judging by the page history it was because some random unregistered editor found the number offensive and changed it to something better suiting their worldview (it's been a problem on all the articles that mention the fact). Keep in mind that filming happens well before release of a movie, so the actress' age at time of release is not the relevant datum. --Xover (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017

Please insert the following at the end of 7.6 Literature and Art: The play is widely referenced and quoted in the 2017 novel "Memoirs of an Unknown God" by Jill Garrison. A performance of the play is one of the key episodes in the novel, the principal characters of which are also, to a degree, star-crossed lovers from 'opposing camps'. Geoffrey clifton (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In particular, a source that documents that the inclusion of the above would accord it due weight considering the very large number of references to Romeo and Juliet in western culture. --Xover (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

References to the play form an integral part of the plot of the book cited above. These are not casual or incidental references and the star crossed lovers motif transfers into the book's narrative structure. Geoffrey clifton (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Still Not done:. You need to provide reliable sources. This time try reading this link to understand how things are done at this encyclopedia. MarnetteD|Talk 15:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I did read the link but could not see how it applies in this case. 'Romeo and Juliet' does play a significant part in the plot structure of 'Memoirs of an unknown god,' as anyone who reads the book will discover. However, I think (from your point of view) the issue boils down to whether the novel is sufficiently well known to be cited in the R & J wikipedia article. Mentions of 'memoirs of an unknown god' do currently run to 4 pages on google but I accept that that in itself may not be sufficient evidence of literary significance. Obviously the final decision is yours and I will respect that. Geoffrey clifton (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Do not open this again until you have a reliable source that confirms the information you wish to add. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun

Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of dead or dubious links (none at the moment). - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2017

DabDaddy626 (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Empty request, nothing to do. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Romeo and Juliet. 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/20140301182936/http://www.kiwipublications.co.uk/easy-read-shakespeare/romeo-and-juliet/ to http://www.kiwipublications.co.uk/easy-read-shakespeare/romeo-and-juliet/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2017

ADDITIONAL ROMEO AND JULIET INFORMATION 2017

This is an adaptation or new rendition to Romeo and Juliet formed and created by Julian Chambers and Patrick Matic Horns of London and Feature's Neil Watson and Eccleton Jarrett. This is a compositional track made up of many elements and musical creation to form a beautiful master piece and is a great representation of what the future has to hold. The creation and form of this track has never been done before and boosts a new energy to the whole creation of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet story in a 21st century. This track has just been put together and can be found at the links below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COLD STEEL (talk • contribs)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, see WP:NOTADVERTISING Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet Film

In the opening paragraph, it mentions the first film as being 1935. It is actually 1936. RyanDanielst (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@RyanDanielst: Thanks for the notice. I see MarnetteD has already fixed it. --Xover (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

a few things are wrong 172.110.245.29 (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Really lady Capulets family that has a feud with house Montague?

In the family of Juliet it seems to be her relatives on her mothers side that are the "hawks" in the family feud with house Montague(Romeos family)Tybalt, the most unsympathetic character in the whole play, is lady Capulets nephew. Her father on the other hand seems comparatively reasonable and peaceable,in this matter. One wonders if it really is the family of lady Capulet that has a feud with the Montagues, the Capulets being involved through marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.216.242 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In England ... inspired?

A decade long dispute over the marriage of Joan Thynne's son into a rival family is said by one source to have maybe inspired Shakespeare. As the R&J was well established then this can only have added to the appeal of the new play, but did it? Any comments? Victuallers (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

One of the subjects needs to be tragedy, as that is the main basis of the play, rather than love 86.3.245.246 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Love is certainly a subject. Tragedy is a genre, unless you mean in the sense of "a great loss", which I still don't think is very fitting. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet was set in the late 13th or early 14th century. It was written in the 16th century but not set in the 16th century.

This article states that Romeo and Juliet is set in the 16th century. However, Romeo and Juliet is set during the Renaissance in either the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century in the northern Italian cities of Verona and Mantua. The majority of sources I could find agree it's the early 14th.

The Montagues and Capulets were based on the Guelphs and Ghibellines which contributed to chronic strife within the cities of northern Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Guelf-and-Ghibelline

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Metropolitan_Opera_Stories_of_the_Gr/7Q0wrZSf0XgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Guelphs+and+Ghibellines+and+romeo+and+juliet&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilted CosmoS (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tilted CosmoS: To what text of the article are you referring? Xover (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Only the line that specifies the years in which the Guelfs and Ghibellines were active. "The split between the Guelfs, who were sympathetic to the papacy, and the Ghibellines, who were sympathetic to the German (Holy Roman) emperors, contributed to chronic strife within the cities of northern Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries." For the second I was referencing: "Felice Romani's libretto draws upon Matteo Bandello's ninth novella, source of Shakespeare's story for 'Romeo and Juilet,' and also upon Giuseppe Foppa's libretto for Nicola Zingarelli's opera 'Giulietta e Romeo (1796),' which is further indebted to Gerolamo della Corte's 'Storie di Verona.' The setting is thirteenth-century Verona, during the feuds between the Ghibellines and Guelphs." Tilted CosmoS (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Ah, wait, I think you might have meant the Wiki article itself. My apologies. The last line of the Wiki's side panel, states the setting is "Italy (Verona and Mantua), 16th century." The last line, "16th century" is incorrect. Tilted CosmoS (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tilted CosmoS: Ah. Yes, it was where in the wiki article I meant. Apologies for not making that clear.

Saying it's 16th century isn't incorrect so much as misleading. The play itself doesn't specify the time period, and all Italianate aspects of it are so heavily fictionalised that they might as well be made up. That the chain of sources from which Shakespeare draws are pinpointed, with various degrees of accuracy and veracity, to a particular era does not really mean that that is the time period for this play. There is no internal evidence that really disqualifies it from being set in 16th-century Verona, it's just a lot more likely that he had in mind some unspecified previous epoch roughly commensurate with the settings for his sources. Essentially, anything more precise than Italian Renaissance would require a dissertation.

In any case, I've removed the offending datum from the infobox for being misleading. Thanks for bringing it up. I also notice that the article has amassed a lot of extraneous cruft since its turn through the Featured Article process that will need to be excised when I can find the time. Particularly the parts dealing with Shakespeare's sources seems to attract people hell-bent on adding ever-more hyper-detailed nuggets about "the real historical Romeo and Juliet" (and everyone has their own pet candidates of course, sigh). Whether most of these are actually supported by reliable sources is one thing, but more immediately such material is far too detailed for what is meant to be a summary of the most important sources on which scholars agree. Xover (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I was recently in a discussion about an "accurate" picture of Solomon's Temple (Talk:Solomon's_Temple#Leadimage), sounds similar to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Basketball

Why is this a notable inclusion?

Stairwell Theater presented Romeo & Juliet with a basketball theme, 2018

There are hundreds of productions that set R&J in various scenarios, locations, themes, periods, etc. Not all are merited for inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Maineartists: It's not and I've removed it. Xover (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Changing profile picture into cover of the book

Hi everyone. I think that the cover of the book is the best option as profile picture than anything else. Because, let's be clear, Romeo and Juliet is a novel, not a painting. It should be this way. Could someone please do this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Which book version? MarnetteD|Talk 16:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussions of medicine within the text

I do not believe any critiques of medical theory or the speculation as to what the poison Romeo consumed was are mentioned and, this is a major part of the criticism of the play. I do apologise if I am mistaken; however, when searching the article, the word "medicine" was never once flagged. Would someone please be able to look into this and address the issue? Prickle of Porcupines (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

Add 'In the same year 2013, the Indian director Sanjay Leela Bhansali took his take on the story known as Goliyon ki Raasleela Ram-Leela' Shraddhasingh001 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

English

In Romeo and Juliet which more powerful fate or the characters own action cartcally discuss the about question in a Well constructed literature essay 41.246.129.139 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Okay, and while I'm doing that, as cartcally as I possibly can, you can get on with your own homework. AndyJones (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

On April 16, 2024, it was announced that Sam Gold will be directing a new adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, starring Rachel Zegler and Kit Connor, coming to Broadway in the fall of 2024. Jack Antonoff is providing the music. Apologeticnerd (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologeticnerd, it appears this is already noted in Romeo and Juliet#21st-century theatre. If you wish to change anything still, please reopen the edit request. Thank you, --Ferien (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2024 (Lack of full title for play mentioned in article)

I am baffled as to why there is not a single mention to the full title being "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet". The page should at the very least start with "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, better [or widely, colloquially] known as "Romeo and Juliet". 31.20.177.231 (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I agree, but "is a tragedy ..." needs to be changed to avoid repetition. M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh. That is interesting and pretty nuts, in my opinion. I also agree that this should be rectified. I've drafted the following in an attempt to avoid the repetition that M.Bitton mentioned.

The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, better known as Romeo and Juliet, is a play written by William Shakespeare early in his career about the romance between two Italian youths from feuding families. It was among Shakespeare's most popular works during his lifetime and, along with Hamlet, is one of his most frequently performed.

I'm not necessarily convinced we need to specify and wikilink "tragedy" in the first sentence when it being a tragedy is in the title and it's properly marked in the infobox. If there are no objections in a couple of days, I'll implement. —Sirdog (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done I have implemented Sirdog's proposed re-rewrite of the lead sentence. M.Bitton (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Title page of the first edition

I'm afraid I don't agree with this conclusion, at all. As with many Shakespearean plays there's not really a correct full title. In the first quarto for example it's An Excellent Conceited Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. AndyJones (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, AndyJones. This is why I wanted to give it a couple of days . I'm more than comfortable conceding to you on this without prejudice, given your authorship on the article, and the fact I am not at all familiar with the play. I've undone my proposed re-write. —Sirdog (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Copy-and-pasting my edit summary here for reference: It is correct. Quarto editions often have unusual/nonstandard titles that subsequent versions ditch; most editions use the Folio titles if they opt to include the full title. If you wish, we can list the alternative title in parentheses (and I suggest doing the same to the other Shakespeare plays, not just this one). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't see where you're going with this, at all. You're looking at two early modern documents and describing the title of one of them as "unusual" and "nonstandard". I have no idea on what basis you are making, or how we even could make, such a judgement without resorting to original research. I think it much wiser to stick to what we already mostly do - give the common short title as the name of the article and in the opening sentence of the lede, and to deal with alternatives in the "date and texts" (or equivalent) sections of the articles. We certainly don't need to mess around with the opening sentence. Note that all the scholarly editions (at least, the Folger, NPS, Arden and Oxford) use the short title on their cover page - and none of them implies the Folio title is "usual" or "standard". AndyJones (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Look beyond Romeo and Juliet. This is the case for most Shakespearean histories and tragedies: the Quartos typically have different titles from the First Folio, but most editions tend to use the Folio title because it is the more commonly accepted/known one. I'll give some examples: Hamlet (The Tragical History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark vs. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark); Richard III (The Tragedy of King Richard the Third vs. The Tragedy of Richard the Third); Henry V (The Chronicle History of Henry the Fifth vs. The Life of Henry the Fifth).

This makes sense, as the Folio is usually considered the most authoritative version; some Quarto editions are unauthorized reproductions. Folger very much uses the Folio title on the title page: [1] [2] [3], as do most other editions if they elect to include the full title (unless the text is version-specific): [4] [5] [6]. I wish I could find more examples, but it's difficult to find free PDF previews online, and some editions do not use the full title at all.

It is the standard practice on Wikipedia to list both the full name and more common short name in bold in the lead, in accordance with MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. See, for example United Kingdom, Columbia University, Frankenstein, Dr. Strangelove, A Christmas Carol, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, etc. MOS:FIRST further states: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including plural forms (particularly if they are unusual or confusing) or synonyms. It doesn't matter which one is listed first, but in my experience, most works of fiction go with the full title first, followed by "commonly known as", as seen in the examples I've listed. Other significant alternate titles can be listed elsewhere in the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)