![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
" the first of Shakespeare's Roman plays (the other two being Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus)."
What happened to Titus Andronicus? Wasn't that both written before Julius Caesar and Roman?-- Savant1984 07:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
What happened to Othello? And it's hard to justify Romeo & Juliet as amongst the usual canon of the "four greats". Mandel 20:24, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a plot summary in this article? Tom Stringham 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there shouldn't be a plot summary and an in detail summary. The in detail summary is poorly written, and I think the other version is sufficient. Do you guys think that we should keep the in detail version, and incorporate text from the other version into it, or just delete it? cøøki ə Ξ (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm for deleting "In detail". Wiki-editors are often enough accused of writing too much like a magazine article as opposed to an encyc. This is the converse — written too much like a term paper. El Ingles 19:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree: in favour of removing the "in detail" section. AndyJones 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It is somewhat disputed as to whether or not Marcus Brutus is the protagonist of the story. He has the most lines, but his life is not what the story revolves around. Some say Caesar is, even though he isn't in much of the play, it revolves around his life and death. Antony is also sometimes considered the protagonist.
When it refers to "O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts," that is not Act III, scene ii, line 96. It is line 114. This should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.253.130.193 ( talk) 15:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
I believe the Romans had hats. They certainly had clocks e.g. water clocks and sun clocks (and tunics of all kinds) as well but I appreciate these are anachronisms in context.
Is it not a little odd that the article should start at anachronisms as if it was of utmost importance and note worthy, all Shakespeare has anachronisms it does not deserve its place in the opening and should be relocated.
User:no man 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if this seems nitpicking to you, but: I was surprised to see that, under "Notable performances", "Screen Performances" comes before "Stage performances". This grates with me somewhat - the thing is, after all, a stage play, so if there is some sort of order-of-precedence issue then surely Stage would be first. To put films first seems to be putting the cart before the horse - they are a consequence, but not the thing itself.
I will be horrified it it turns out that there is some general wp rule about this which I have inadvertently broken - except that even if there is, it does not really work well for this particular case and others like it. So I propose to change the order. (In fact, on a quick look I see other plays where there is a separate subhead for "performance history" which is, naturally, *all* stage performances, then another subhead after that for adaptations which is divided into screen, musical, whatever ... that might be better. But for now I still think this minor order change is worth making.) 138.37.199.206 09:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Way too much of this article is given over to discussing whether in fact everyone in this play is, basically, gay. And, by extension, whether all politicians, soldiers, hell, all men are in fact gay. Aside from the validity of this viewpoint, and most people will think it is just cranky, it is one tiny, modish theory by a couple of obscure feminist academics who doubtless think every male friendship/partnership/companionship in literature and life is also "homosocial." I am sure communists, islamists, Confucians, Satanists and cobblers can all bring their particular viewpoint to the play, by applying their theories to the text and their matrices to their material. But this part of the article as it stands tells us absolutely nothing about the play. It is just a theory of life applied to a text, with gruesome, ridiculous results. In fact, is it a joke? Whatever, it will really mislead the reader if it is not cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.174.215 ( talk) 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would cut this as well. There are many theories about Julius Caesar and this seems a particularly niche one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.56.178 ( talk) 06:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This was moved from my talk page, but I accidentally moved it to Talk:Julius Caesar. I have it in the right place now. Sorry. Cowardly Lion ( talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving this comment from my talk page, as it's related directly to the edits to the article, so really belongs here. It means if others have an opinion, they can weigh in. I hope Smatprt doesn't mind. (I'll reply shortly.) Cowardly Lion ( talk) 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi again - I thought some of the info you deleted was pretty interesting - and I have always been against deleting content without first asking for a source or attempting a rewrite. I also think the rewrite is a bit rough. Are we sure that what Platter saw was Shakespeare's play, for example? "Scholars have decided" is also a bit questionable - perhaps "Scholars have suggested"? Also not sure if being close to something in vocabulary can be called a "fact" - how do we define "close to"? Okay - I'm babbling again and "close to" annoying. Tah for now. Smatprt ( talk) 16:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
IS THIS THREAD IN THE RIGHT PLACE? Or should it be at Julius Caesar (play)? AndyJones ( talk) 17:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, replying now. The edit in question were this one. If people disagree with my removal, then of course, put it back. I agree some of what I deleted was quite interesting, though I didn't find it fascinating! I just felt it wasn't well sourced and wasn't the best possible evidence, and there was enough without it. Are we sure that what Platter saw was Shakespeare's play? Well, I'm not, because I haven't seen exactly what Platter wrote. But the scholars whose books I consulted didn't seem to have any doubt. I don't mind "scholars have suggested", although note that I used "probable" for the date, which is less dogmatic. Can you think of a better word than "fact"? I've no problem with changing it. Cheers. Cowardly Lion ( talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In this article, [[Brutus]] is directed to both Decimus Junius Brutus and Marcus Junius Brutus in different places. These are different people. Which is it?-- Mmmready 19:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How much of this play is based on history, and how much is just Shakespeare's story? Could someone please do a section comparing the play to the actual event? For example, did Cassius actually have to persuade Brutus? Were any of the omens of Caesar's death real?was Brutus in fact a friend of Caesar's? And so on. Thanks. Twilight Realm 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The article states under the "protagonist" heading that "The general conclusion among critics is that Brutus is in fact the protagonist of the play Julius Caesar, although some have tried to prove otherwise." This is not cited. Is it original research? 64.140.248.31 ( talk) 19:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the above sentence (starting "the article states..." was me, but I forgot to sign in, hence it was unsigned-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 11:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The analysis of the play presented under the title "gender studies approaches" makes so little sense to me that I wonder if the whole thing isn't an elaborate spoof. Anybody know if Barbara Parker is a real person, and whether she actually believes that knife wounds are like vaginas? If so, should this encyclopedia be giving credence to that belief? Cheers. -- El Ingles ( talk) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was: page moved back to previous title as requested because move was not uncontroversial, without prejudice to reopening discussion. Station1 ( talk) 07:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The Tragedy of Julius Cæsar → Julius Caesar (play) — [According to numerous discussions by members of the WikiProject Shakespeare, the plays of Shakespeare should be listed by their common (best known) names. A recent user, unaware of this consensus, recently retitled this article to the title used in the First Folio. Unfortunately, this good faith edit goes against the consensus of project editors.] -- Smatprt ( talk) 22:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If you'll look at the bold and italicized words:
Could someone fix this? Bananaclasic ( talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I click on the free links and some of them are littered with ads and some even have popups. The navigation is not easy either. Could we pare down the list of links a bit? Perhaps limiting it to non-profit sites? DavidRF ( talk) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
"the fault, dear Brutus" - this seems to be in Act 1 Scene 2. see the link [3] Eiler7 ( talk) 19:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Where it lists discrepancies between the play and the real events it says Caesar was killed on the Capitol as opposed to Pompey’s Curia. Then in parentheses it says "Pompey’s House". The Curia is not his house, it’s a theatre. And does Pompey even have a house at this point? He has been dead for some time now....
Jesta510 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The Curia is not a theatre, it's a Senate House or meeting hall. It's part of the complex that Pompey's theatre was also part of.
Tony Keen2 ( talk) 18:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
"It is also notable for being the only Shakespeare play which contains not a single overtly humorous line."
I am not sure if this is true. In the first scene the banter between Flavius, Marullus, the Carpenter, and the Cobbler appears to be overtly humorous. The Cobbler's work-related puns are intended to be humorous:
Cobbler: I can mend you.
Marullus: What mean'st thou by that? Mend me, thou saucy fellow!
Cobbler: Why, sir, cobble you.
Flavius: Thou art a cobbler, art thou?
Cobbler: Truly, sir, all that I live by is with the awl.
I might add that I thought a line in Act IV, Scene I was a great one-line put down. Octavius tells Anthony, while discussing who will rule post-Caesar Rome, that Lepidus is "a tried and valiant soldier." Anthony replies "So is my horse...". Crash Pad Dad, 9/7/06
The section re the direction of the Sun (whilst Cassius & Brutus are having a chat) is quite funny too-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
While reading the synopsis another possibility arose to me. Perhaps Shakespeare didn't deviate from the famous line that was really said, "Et tu Brute", but rather, the words "then fall Caesar" were Shakespeare's notes to the actor, telling him to fall after being "stabbed". Later this was mistakenly included in Caesar's dialogue! But if it were dialogue, it probably should have been "then I shall fall", in the first person, as Caesar himself is the one speaking. Something to ponder.... Darkkelf99 ( talk) 20:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Darkkelf99
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Julius Caesar (play). 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Jules César. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Jules César until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
17:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
" the first of Shakespeare's Roman plays (the other two being Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus)."
What happened to Titus Andronicus? Wasn't that both written before Julius Caesar and Roman?-- Savant1984 07:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
What happened to Othello? And it's hard to justify Romeo & Juliet as amongst the usual canon of the "four greats". Mandel 20:24, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a plot summary in this article? Tom Stringham 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there shouldn't be a plot summary and an in detail summary. The in detail summary is poorly written, and I think the other version is sufficient. Do you guys think that we should keep the in detail version, and incorporate text from the other version into it, or just delete it? cøøki ə Ξ (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm for deleting "In detail". Wiki-editors are often enough accused of writing too much like a magazine article as opposed to an encyc. This is the converse — written too much like a term paper. El Ingles 19:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree: in favour of removing the "in detail" section. AndyJones 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It is somewhat disputed as to whether or not Marcus Brutus is the protagonist of the story. He has the most lines, but his life is not what the story revolves around. Some say Caesar is, even though he isn't in much of the play, it revolves around his life and death. Antony is also sometimes considered the protagonist.
When it refers to "O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts," that is not Act III, scene ii, line 96. It is line 114. This should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.253.130.193 ( talk) 15:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
I believe the Romans had hats. They certainly had clocks e.g. water clocks and sun clocks (and tunics of all kinds) as well but I appreciate these are anachronisms in context.
Is it not a little odd that the article should start at anachronisms as if it was of utmost importance and note worthy, all Shakespeare has anachronisms it does not deserve its place in the opening and should be relocated.
User:no man 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if this seems nitpicking to you, but: I was surprised to see that, under "Notable performances", "Screen Performances" comes before "Stage performances". This grates with me somewhat - the thing is, after all, a stage play, so if there is some sort of order-of-precedence issue then surely Stage would be first. To put films first seems to be putting the cart before the horse - they are a consequence, but not the thing itself.
I will be horrified it it turns out that there is some general wp rule about this which I have inadvertently broken - except that even if there is, it does not really work well for this particular case and others like it. So I propose to change the order. (In fact, on a quick look I see other plays where there is a separate subhead for "performance history" which is, naturally, *all* stage performances, then another subhead after that for adaptations which is divided into screen, musical, whatever ... that might be better. But for now I still think this minor order change is worth making.) 138.37.199.206 09:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Way too much of this article is given over to discussing whether in fact everyone in this play is, basically, gay. And, by extension, whether all politicians, soldiers, hell, all men are in fact gay. Aside from the validity of this viewpoint, and most people will think it is just cranky, it is one tiny, modish theory by a couple of obscure feminist academics who doubtless think every male friendship/partnership/companionship in literature and life is also "homosocial." I am sure communists, islamists, Confucians, Satanists and cobblers can all bring their particular viewpoint to the play, by applying their theories to the text and their matrices to their material. But this part of the article as it stands tells us absolutely nothing about the play. It is just a theory of life applied to a text, with gruesome, ridiculous results. In fact, is it a joke? Whatever, it will really mislead the reader if it is not cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.174.215 ( talk) 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would cut this as well. There are many theories about Julius Caesar and this seems a particularly niche one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.56.178 ( talk) 06:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This was moved from my talk page, but I accidentally moved it to Talk:Julius Caesar. I have it in the right place now. Sorry. Cowardly Lion ( talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving this comment from my talk page, as it's related directly to the edits to the article, so really belongs here. It means if others have an opinion, they can weigh in. I hope Smatprt doesn't mind. (I'll reply shortly.) Cowardly Lion ( talk) 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi again - I thought some of the info you deleted was pretty interesting - and I have always been against deleting content without first asking for a source or attempting a rewrite. I also think the rewrite is a bit rough. Are we sure that what Platter saw was Shakespeare's play, for example? "Scholars have decided" is also a bit questionable - perhaps "Scholars have suggested"? Also not sure if being close to something in vocabulary can be called a "fact" - how do we define "close to"? Okay - I'm babbling again and "close to" annoying. Tah for now. Smatprt ( talk) 16:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
IS THIS THREAD IN THE RIGHT PLACE? Or should it be at Julius Caesar (play)? AndyJones ( talk) 17:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, replying now. The edit in question were this one. If people disagree with my removal, then of course, put it back. I agree some of what I deleted was quite interesting, though I didn't find it fascinating! I just felt it wasn't well sourced and wasn't the best possible evidence, and there was enough without it. Are we sure that what Platter saw was Shakespeare's play? Well, I'm not, because I haven't seen exactly what Platter wrote. But the scholars whose books I consulted didn't seem to have any doubt. I don't mind "scholars have suggested", although note that I used "probable" for the date, which is less dogmatic. Can you think of a better word than "fact"? I've no problem with changing it. Cheers. Cowardly Lion ( talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In this article, [[Brutus]] is directed to both Decimus Junius Brutus and Marcus Junius Brutus in different places. These are different people. Which is it?-- Mmmready 19:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How much of this play is based on history, and how much is just Shakespeare's story? Could someone please do a section comparing the play to the actual event? For example, did Cassius actually have to persuade Brutus? Were any of the omens of Caesar's death real?was Brutus in fact a friend of Caesar's? And so on. Thanks. Twilight Realm 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The article states under the "protagonist" heading that "The general conclusion among critics is that Brutus is in fact the protagonist of the play Julius Caesar, although some have tried to prove otherwise." This is not cited. Is it original research? 64.140.248.31 ( talk) 19:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the above sentence (starting "the article states..." was me, but I forgot to sign in, hence it was unsigned-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 11:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The analysis of the play presented under the title "gender studies approaches" makes so little sense to me that I wonder if the whole thing isn't an elaborate spoof. Anybody know if Barbara Parker is a real person, and whether she actually believes that knife wounds are like vaginas? If so, should this encyclopedia be giving credence to that belief? Cheers. -- El Ingles ( talk) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was: page moved back to previous title as requested because move was not uncontroversial, without prejudice to reopening discussion. Station1 ( talk) 07:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The Tragedy of Julius Cæsar → Julius Caesar (play) — [According to numerous discussions by members of the WikiProject Shakespeare, the plays of Shakespeare should be listed by their common (best known) names. A recent user, unaware of this consensus, recently retitled this article to the title used in the First Folio. Unfortunately, this good faith edit goes against the consensus of project editors.] -- Smatprt ( talk) 22:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If you'll look at the bold and italicized words:
Could someone fix this? Bananaclasic ( talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I click on the free links and some of them are littered with ads and some even have popups. The navigation is not easy either. Could we pare down the list of links a bit? Perhaps limiting it to non-profit sites? DavidRF ( talk) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
"the fault, dear Brutus" - this seems to be in Act 1 Scene 2. see the link [3] Eiler7 ( talk) 19:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Where it lists discrepancies between the play and the real events it says Caesar was killed on the Capitol as opposed to Pompey’s Curia. Then in parentheses it says "Pompey’s House". The Curia is not his house, it’s a theatre. And does Pompey even have a house at this point? He has been dead for some time now....
Jesta510 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The Curia is not a theatre, it's a Senate House or meeting hall. It's part of the complex that Pompey's theatre was also part of.
Tony Keen2 ( talk) 18:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
"It is also notable for being the only Shakespeare play which contains not a single overtly humorous line."
I am not sure if this is true. In the first scene the banter between Flavius, Marullus, the Carpenter, and the Cobbler appears to be overtly humorous. The Cobbler's work-related puns are intended to be humorous:
Cobbler: I can mend you.
Marullus: What mean'st thou by that? Mend me, thou saucy fellow!
Cobbler: Why, sir, cobble you.
Flavius: Thou art a cobbler, art thou?
Cobbler: Truly, sir, all that I live by is with the awl.
I might add that I thought a line in Act IV, Scene I was a great one-line put down. Octavius tells Anthony, while discussing who will rule post-Caesar Rome, that Lepidus is "a tried and valiant soldier." Anthony replies "So is my horse...". Crash Pad Dad, 9/7/06
The section re the direction of the Sun (whilst Cassius & Brutus are having a chat) is quite funny too-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
While reading the synopsis another possibility arose to me. Perhaps Shakespeare didn't deviate from the famous line that was really said, "Et tu Brute", but rather, the words "then fall Caesar" were Shakespeare's notes to the actor, telling him to fall after being "stabbed". Later this was mistakenly included in Caesar's dialogue! But if it were dialogue, it probably should have been "then I shall fall", in the first person, as Caesar himself is the one speaking. Something to ponder.... Darkkelf99 ( talk) 20:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Darkkelf99
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Julius Caesar (play). 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Jules César. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Jules César until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
17:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)