Talk:Romeo and Juliet

Age of the characters & judicial influence

Shouldn't some note be made of the age of the characters, and how this is today used as an example of the acceptability of teenage sex? (as a prominent cultural reminder of the fact that adulthood used to begin much younger) A number of states and provinces around the world have existing "Romeo and Juliet" laws or clauses. (see: Age_of_consent_reform#Close-in-age_exemptions) Esn (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you point us to some references so we can add it in? Wrad (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We used to have a section describing cultural influences like this, but I guess it was taken out during FAC? We'd need to discuss bringing that back in if we want to add this. Wrad (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Such a section is just inviting pop culture trivia; and as far as I can tell the above referenced article does not provide a citation for the relevant claim. --Xover (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You can easily find citations just by doing a quick google search. Here are some random ones that I found: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Esn (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this just an incidental name, or do judges actually think in their minds "this is okay behavior because it is in Romeo and Juliet"? I think it is the latter. I don't think the connection is anything more than incidental. Wrad (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "incidental"? Esn (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is connected in name only. Romeo and Juliet did not persuade the public that teenage sex was ok. Other things did. Wrad (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That is also an assertion which you would need sources to prove. I don't really see how something can be connected "in name only"; names aren't given lightly, despite what that guy who recently named his son "Adolf Hitler" might say. The fact that the laws were named directly after the play suggests that there is something in the play that captures the spirit of the laws. At the very least, it should be mentioned in a "See also" section that there are laws in a number of US states (and I think some in Canadian provinces, and maybe other countries) that are called "Romeo and Juliet laws". Esn (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put a reference to the Romeo and Juliet laws in the disambiguation page for Romeo and Juliet. You can see and edit the mention here: Romeo and Juliet (disambiguation). --Malkinann (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd have to prove that the connection is more than just incidental if you wanted it in this article. You can't add something to the Green article just because it's green, it has to add something to our understanding of what green is and means. I'm not sure that the fact that the laws are named after the play means anything more than that someone noticed in passing the connection to teenage love. Do your sources indicate otherwise? If not, it shouldn't be added. The burden of proof is on you, my friend. There's no need for me to prove that it isn't more than superficially connected unless you can show us something that says it is. Wrad (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malkinann, that works. Esn (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Wrad (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think that maybe the age of the characters should be mentioned somewhere in the article though; it's a basic piece of information, after all. Esn (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

From the plot section: Count Paris talks to Lord Capulet about marrying his daughter, but Capulet is wary of the request because Juliet is still only thirteen... Wrad (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And the 20th century theatre section: Throughout the century, audiences, influenced by the cinema, became less willing to accept actors distinctly older than the teenage characters they were playing... Wrad (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't see those before. Esn (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The caption at the top's letters overlapPr1nce0fDarkn3ss (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Once Again About R&J and "Teenage Sex"

Re the above discussion, don't forget that Romeo and Juliet (in the play) don't sleep together until they're married. That rather complicates any comparison of the play to modern "teenage sex." It seems to me that the issue of teenage suicide is more relevant here. Tom129.93.17.153 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Afterlife"?

That is one silly title. Can't somebody come up with a better one? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I defend it here, FWIW. AndyJones (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Odd statement in article

Why does this article say R&J is one of Shakespeare's most popular plays "along with Hamlet"? Midsummer Night's Dream, for example, is actually produced more often than Hamlet. Why not just say R&J is "one of Shakespeare's most popular plays", period? Tom129.93.17.153 (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's because almost anyone around the world (even people who don't know nothing about Shakespeare) knows that Romeo and Juliet is a 'love story', and that Hamlet is a 'story about a sad prince'. I'll hardly say the same about MN's Dream. --Yuma (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tom, What is your source for the MND thing? I don't think you're right, and the statement in the article is sourced to Levenson (2000: 69–70). AndyJones (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you one thing: Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet are the two most popular Shakespeare play articles on wikipedia both in terms of visitors and in terms of editors, and they have been for quite awhile. Wrad (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article contains enough opinion presented as fact I doubt one more will make any difference. A metric for popularity is almost impossible to define - wiki editting/visitors is about as weak as one could get - but what can you do ?

Yeah, ummm... that's why we didn't source it to wiki statistics. Chill out. If you think other stuff is opinion presented as fact, point it out. Wrad (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rosaline a Capulet?

She's Lord Capulet's niece, isn't she? Shouldn't she go under the Capulets then? Kroova (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New Moon

New Moon, the second book in the Twilight series, is loosely based on Romeo and Juliet. I have a source, but first I'd like to know it it's worth mentioning in the article. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's important for the New Moon article, but less important here. I'd tend to add it to the New Moon article, but not to the Romeo and Juliet article. --Malkinann (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think that the "afterlife" section is more intended for direct adaptations rather than mere inspirations (in recent cases Twilight and Taylor Swift's "Love Story") Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WHERE?

Where was the play taken place in England?

• The play takes place in Verona, Italy. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• If you read the article, it is thought to have been first performed in London, England, between 1591 and 1595 by The Lord Chamberlain's Men. Follow that link to find out which theatres they played at during those years. --GuillaumeTell 01:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi im doing romeo and juliet at school any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.164.108 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC) gaasdgaeraergthjtst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.31.48 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

romeo and juliet

why did the events happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.223.235 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lurcio, 18 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Can someone with greater experience make a couple of changes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_and_Juliet for me, or let me know why they aren't suitable. Thanks.

Change 1 - Add a reference to modern media to the final paragraph in the intro section.

i.e.

at the start ...

from

 Romeo and Juliet has been adapted numerous times for stage, film, musical and opera. 

to

 Romeo and Juliet has been adapted numerous times for stage, film, musical, opera and modern social media. 

and/or at the end ...

from

In the 20th century ... 1996's MTV-inspired Romeo + Juliet.

the romeo and juliet had died at the end of the long story

to

In the 20th century ... 1996's MTV-inspired Romeo + Juliet. In the 21st century an interactive production 'Such Tweet Sorrow' <Ref1>, by Mudlark <ref2> and the Royal Shakespeare Company <ref3>, was performed in 2010 on the Twitter <Ref4> social media site.

Change 2 - Add new section after 7.7 Screen

21st-century media

The rise in popularity of the internet and other communication technologies has seen Romeo and Juliet productions appear in social media sites such as the 2010 interactive production 'Such Tweet Sorrow' <Ref1>

Produced by Mudlark <ref2> and created in collaboration with the Royal Shakespeare Company <ref3> and 4iP <Ref4>, Such Tweet Sorrow is/was an experiment in bringing global theatre to life. Performed by six professional actors over a five week period using Twitter <Ref5> accounts, to interact with each other and their followers/audience live and in real-time. The performers also make use of other media sites such as YouTube for pictures and video.

References

<Ref1> http://suchtweetsorrow.com/
<Ref2> http://www.wearemudlark.com/
<Ref3> http://www.rsc.org/
<Ref4> http://www.4ip.org.uk/
<Ref5> http://twitter.com/

other references...

http://www.wearemudlark.com/blog/such-tweet-sorrow/

Channel 4 News http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/shakespeare+online+is+such+tweet+sorrow/3610387
BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8615432.stm
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/apr/12/shakespeare-twitter-such-tweet-sorrow
The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-news/7571639/RSC-launches-Romeo-and-Juliet-on-Twitter.html
The Times http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/theatre/article7094756.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084
The Stage http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/27829/rsc-to-stage-twitter-romeo-and-juliet
New York Times http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/such-tweet-sorrow-shakespeare-gets-the-social-media-treatment/
Canada.com http://www.canada.com/news/Such+tweet+sorrow+Romeo+Juliet+never/2800582/story.html
Mashable http://mashable.com/2010/04/12/rj-twitter/

Lurcio (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, Lurcio. This looks OK in principle, but it is a bit long for me to tackle right now; I notice that your account dates back to 2008, but you have only made 5 edits so far; if you make another 5 edits to any page - for example, WP:SANDBOX - then you will be able to edit this article yourself, directly. That is because, once you are auto-confirmed, you will be able to edit semi-protected articles.

I think this is the best answer to your request, if you could do the edits yourself; I hope you agree. If not, please do just add {{editsemiprotected}} here again, and someone will perform the edits for you.

I will also note this on your own talk page; many thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

To help this undoubtedly out-of-touch editor, what are "modern social media", please? If they are to be exampled from twittering sites as Such tweet sorrow (neat title!) this may strain the WP:RS policy somewhat. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian, Telegraph and so on, are reliable sources for what is in progress, and the widespread coverage shows notability. Social media are, as I understand it, all modern, if not post-modern. In fact, since you are editing Wikipedia, you may find it difficult to plead ignorance for much longer. William Avery (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll carry on trying, but thanks for the suggestions! My real point was that the twittering sites themselves—the first five suggested for inclusion as references— probably couldn't be used: additions to the article would have to come from the secondary sources. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And a suitable perspective is needed for these developments to play with 400 years of history. William Avery (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Chzz for the response and useful advice on my talk page. As I explained in my reply I don't have the time or WP knowledge to argue for this change and since I expected it would result in debate and change, even if accepted, it seemed pointless to struggle with the formatting when it might be deleted. My main point was to raise awareness of this event since it prompted me to look at the Wikipedia entry and found no reference to it. As for the comments made so far (thanks for being gentle with me) I think I understand the question about the validity of the 5 main references I gave and suggest that perhaps they could become external links instead. An additional link to http://www.hannahnicklin.com/2010/04/such-tweet-sorrow-a-blog-post-in-two-acts/ would also show the level of interactive involvement that this event has provoked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurcio (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

However, it's now in, with the tweets (rather that the reliable, secondary sources such as the Guardian article) as the justification, and no account given to the "suitable perspective" called for above. To me the prominence seems WP:UNDUE: the phenomenon justifies coverage, but this article is about the play Romeo and Juliet, not about modern social media. I am asking for a really heavy trim perhaps with a WP:SS link to its own page, in the same way Romeo and Juliet on screen is dealt with here. Other views requested—anyone reading this section from the start may well feel that I am not the editor to undertake it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that tweets etc. are not appropriate RS of course; however, this is now a content discussion issue, so fine, go for it, etc. If I can help as a neutral mediator, give me a shout.  Chzz  ►  23:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No volunteers, but no objections either, so I set about doing the spinoff page. Unfortunately it was pounced upon by User:CorenSearchBot as a copyright violation, (see here) as too close to the BBC article. By the time I finish here the new article will probably have been deleted. New suggestion: a one-line entry, sourced but not copied from the BBC or similar, along the lines of: "In April 2010 the Royal Shakespeare Company and production company Mudlark presented a version of the play, titled Such Tweet Sorrow, as an improvised, real-time version of Romeo and Juliet as a series of tweets on Twitter." Any expansion, using original material this time, could take place in a new spinoff article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Toon05 for removing the copyvio; replaced with a short section of original material. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence or Laurence

I don't care, but it should be the same throughout. Any preferences, before I get on with it? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My Complete Works has Laurence, and so has the List of Shakespearean characters (L–Z), although that redirects to Friar Lawrence. I'd go for Laurence.--GuillaumeTell 10:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mine (Bate and Craig) too, but as the link goes to Lawrence... --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article was created in 2006 (as Friar lawrence) by an editor who made no more contributions of any description to Wikipedia, at least not under the same username, and, as you'd expect, did not cite a Reliable Source. I assume that Andy Jones, who created the List, made the redirect because either he didn't know which was correct or he had more important things to do than move pages. There must be a facsimile of one or more of the quartos on the Internet somewhere (or maybe someone can see what the Arden edition and others say), but if 3 Complete Works (mine is C. J Sisson's) say Laurence then I don't see why we shouldn't change all Lawrences to Laurence and move the FL page too. Just my three ha'p'orth. --GuillaumeTell 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And furthermore, there are 10 instances of Friar Laurence in the text and footnotes of the article, and the only instance of Friar Lawrence is the link to the article of that name. Open-and-shut case, IMNSHO! --GuillaumeTell 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems conclusive; I'll fix it shortly. Sad that I've just done this on Characters in Romeo and Juliet (fifty-fifty there), but went the other way, for "Lawrence". 'Spose I need to do that too. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed this one; now back to Characters in Romeo and Juliet. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This text was of poor quality, and later editions corrected it, bringing it more in line with Shakespeare's original.

What do we know about Shakespeare's original? Are we presuming the First Folio was based on an 'original'? (fotoguzzi)69.64.235.42 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

More of an explanation, with references, in the "Date and text" section, lower down.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know, in the 1600s people were still learning how to read. That isn't to say that people were illiterate. Take Shakespeare dad, he made gloves. He didn't need to know how to read letters, he made gloves, he read hands. Utility was just more important in this aspect, in the 'old world'. Anyway, what I am trying to get across is the idea that Shakespeare 'original' was based on a folklore & prior to Romeo & Juliet was spread by word of mouth. Book-lore [or: the written word] didn't become widely popular until a little after Shakespeare...173.218.85.222 (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

National Museum of the American Indian

A discussion of the relevance of the above institution is referenced in "Secondary sources": Lujan, James (2005). "A Museum of the Indian, Not for the Indian". Anybody know why? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Found it: apologies to anyone still awake. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

An Unpopular Parallel

Romeo & Juliet, how about... Rome & Jerusalem Christianity & Judaism

We spend too much time analyzing what has developed this tale, which is how we see it at face value, but I had this thought last night & the irony is striking. Shall we call it an anvil? Anyway, have fun with that, everyone hates my edits & good luck finding a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone add Valentine in the house of Escalus, he is Mercutios brother, aye? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.147.218 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from GLUBGLUBdippyfish, 17 April 2011

GLUBGLUBdippyfish (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The characters are wrong. Montague: Sampson Gregory lord Montague lady Montague Benvolio

Capulet: Lord & Lady Capulet Abram Tybalt

GLUBGLUBdippyfish (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Youtube videos of part of a 1996 movie aren't necessarily an accurate representation of Shakespeare's play (which is what this article is about). As far as I can see, all the characters you listed are under the correct headings in the article, and if you click the blue links from their names (or the link to Characters in Romeo and Juliet), you'll see that they are correctly described. (And Montague and Capulet are not Lord Montague and Lord Capulet, as the character descriptions demonstrate.) --GuillaumeTell 15:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Rejecting the The Danvers/Long feud

The facts of the feuding families and the assistance Southampton gave to the murderers as they fled into exile are well-attested and not in dispute. The possible connexion to the exile in R&J is discussed by many authors, such as Katherine Duncan-Jones, Alan Palmer and Richard Wilson. There's no reason why a balanced account can't be included here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Including speculations of this kind is alway a little tricky. I would suggest that a cautious approach would be to limit ourselves to accounts from literary / theatre studies that discuss the possible influence, rather than that of historians eager to find significance for the events they write about (I accept that's my own speculation). The actions/events are pretty generic and that they correlate with events represented in the play doesn't mean there's an influence. But I accept that proving influence is very difficult. It looks like at least one of the three people OM lists is from a literature department. I would expect them to be attentive to the complexities and difficulties of influence on art in a way that historians may not be. If it's a contentious issue, could we perhaps see the evidence here first? No reader is going to suffer from its absence in the meantime.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 13:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Good points. The reason I mentioned Katherine D-J (Professor, English faculty, Oxford) first is that her book is gradually creeping up my "to read next" pile, rather than any preference for her non-partisan, not-a-historian credentials. I'll give it a little nudge towards the top. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)