Talk:Macbeth/Archive 2

Shorten superstition discussion and refer to Main article: The Scottish play
Since there is a Main article: The Scottish play, this superstition section receives far too many lines of this article on MacBeth, interrupting the flow and diluting the focus.

The superstition discussion should be shortened to a single very short paragraph. A good model for a concise treatment is this section (on film versions of Macbeth)

"Film versions

Main article: Macbeth on screen

William Shakespeare's Macbeth has been screened numerous times featuring many of the biggest names from stage, film and television."

That's okay, this article also fails to mention that the play was written for King James of England and performed for King James and his sister when she came to visit her brother... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.153.178 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Video Game Macbeth
Why does it say Macbeth has been made into a video game? There is not Macbeth video game, and I honestly dont recall a Macbeth comic book either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.24.157 (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it is in reference to this, a text-based adventure mentioned in the external links. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 02:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

HELP!!!!
Hi, I'm doing an eassay on the Three Withces of Macbeth. But I need help on finding the name of the man who supposedly wrote Act 4 Scene 1. Celina Tatianaxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by CelinaTatiana (talk • contribs) 12:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thomas Middleton. It's mentioned in this article in the Date and Text section. Smatprt (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

'Tyrant Plays'
The link for "tyrant plays" goes to the entry for Herod. There's no indication on that page of any connection between Herod and a style of play. Rmd1023 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * it may have been edited out of the herod article. check its page history? Lentower (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Listing "Act" numbers in Synopsis
According to discussions at WikiProject Shakespeare, we don't put "Act" or "Scene" delineations into the Synopsis. For an example, please see the FA articles Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet. Also see project guidelines here. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Help
is Macbeth the pro or antaginast? It changeis over severl arctales. thanks! 69.217.51.252 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Macbeth is the protagonist. The play is about him, he is therefore the protagonist.  Could you please point to where it says he's the antagonist?  I'd like to see that fixed.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Macbeth (character) says both.99.149.126.135 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Macbeth and the Witches
"Macbeth realizes, too late, the Witches have misled him." --- Is that really true? Did they mislead him? I doubt it. They merely told him facts and it was Macbeth himself who failed to interpret their comments correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.146 (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a hopefully appropriate adjustment. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They did mislead him with the "none of woman born / shall harm Macbeth" and "never vanquish'd be until / Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill / shall come against him" because they knew he'd interpret those predictions as no-one and never, respectively, when in fact they knew MacDuff would kill him and the army would camouflage itself with Birnam Wood branches. Woz2 (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Restoration and 18th century
It looks like we're missing a sentence there. There's mention of Garrick, but no explanation of who he is or what he did. I think it was vandalized. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Authorship questions?
The William Shakespeare article has MacBeth listed as only partially written (under the Works section), but in this article there is no discussion. Somebody should harmonize this.Stardude82 (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a brief discussion of this in the Date and text section. But, yes, the article as it stands is rather thin on this and most other aspects of the play. --Xover (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Middleton only gets that one brief metion on this page, when actually the relative shortness of Macbeth and the probability that some of its scenes are non-Shakespearean is important in the scholarly literature. I recall that (back in the day when I was active on Wikipedia) there was some talk of making this page a Wikiproject Shakespeare collaboration. Did that go somewhere? And should it? This is an important subject: arguably the most high-profile non-FA within the Wikiproject's remit. AndyJones (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what few of us are active these days are a little too wrung out after the SAQ FAC to do much of anything, but last we talked about it the consensus seemed to be in favour of doing King Lear as the next collaboration. But you can take your pick of plays: apart from the two FAs they're all in deplorable state relative to what they deserve; and even the FAs are sorely lacking in the supporting articles. Of course, seeing the great AndyJones return once more to the `pedia might breathe a second wind into everyone… :-) --Xover (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very kind! Although I'm not promising that I'm back (nor am I denying the "great" which is, er, no more than my due). I'm merely passing through at the moment. Yes, I have overlooked the SAQ FA and surrounding activities with great interest (and not a little sadness that such conflict was required). But it is a spectacularly good article now and Wikipedia is right to be proud of it. I'll take a look at King Lear before I express any specific opinion on this discussion, though. AndyJones (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Less than a minute after my last posting, I'm back here with the opinion that King Lear could indeed be improved just with the type of purge I did at User:AndyJones/The Tempest. If I have a few free hours tomorrow I might take a look! AndyJones (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

some sections have needed referencing for years
Time to remove? HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism or Easter Egg? Harry Potter reference
The visible version states "Shakespeare borrowed the story from Harry Potter in Holinshed's Chronicles" and Google includes this version. But when I click "edit" I see the more innocent "Shakespeare borrowed the story from several tales in Holinshed's Chronicles" What's going on here? Clever vandal, quirk of Wikipedia, or Jummy Wales having a laugh?


 * Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have posted a thread at AN/I to try and track down what is going on. MarnetteD | Talk 15:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been fixed. Looks like we were caught in between versions and refreshing the cache cleaned things up. MarnetteD | Talk 15:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dating and text edits
I removed the sourced statement because it is superfluous; it is restated in the next two sentences: "scholars say that the play is unlikely to have been composed earlier than 1603 .... [t]he vast majority of critics think the play was written in 1606 ..."

I am in the process of overhauling the section. The evidence for the 1606 dating is much more abundant than is acknowledged in the article. While a few editors think the many gunpowder plot allusions can be written off to coincidence, the vast majority, including Taylor, Wells, et al, say the play was written in 1606 because of the allusions. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain. I appreciate your efforts. I know that edit summaries have limited space but you might leave a little more then just "ce dating". Now you certainly aren't required to do that I'm just suggesting it to help explain to the rest of us what you are doing. Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not aware this page was a site of contentious editing except for the occasional vandal. Not trying to be contentious myself, but I doubt that I'll wait for general approval before making edits. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you to get approval I was asking that you provide, in your edit summary, the reason behind the edits. The one thing this article gets is more school kid vandalism than any other three plays combined. Must have something to do with the Scottish Play curse :) MarnetteD | Talk 23:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't an indication be made that topical references do not necessarily show that the entire play had to be written after the date of whatever the reference refers to since the reference could have been added to the play long after it was written, as we know some material occasionally was?Bxb Grxmmxn (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ref section changes
I'm changing the ref style to the Harvard style in the anticipation that this article will go FA sometime in the future. All of the refs aren't included yet, and none of the cites have been reformatted, and I think that a lot of the cites will be replaced with better ones. I ask that any person who edits this page to conform to the Harvard style while editing this article. Thanks. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. However, I suggest that, in the interests of accuracy, the 'Notes' section be renamed to 'References,' and the 'References' section to 'Bibliography.' See A Midsummer Night's Dream for a model. El Ingles (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI the usual breakdown of these that I have seen is ==References== ;Notes

;Bibliography

I am not insisting on this - just adding it as something to think about. Whatever form you choose it should be made consistent throughout all the Shakespeare articles. MarnetteD | Talk 23:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Rats I knew that this one was too simplified (comes from working on film articles too much I guess) for what the two of you are talking about. A better version is used on the Oscar Wilde article beginning here Oscar Wilde so see if that fits better with your plans. MarnetteD | Talk 23:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I really like that format. I'll be using it. Thanks much. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

HELP!!!!!
where can i find macbeth in english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.179.212 (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of places on the web - just search for "Macbeth text". By the way, this page is for discussion about improving the Wikipedia article Macbeth, not for any other purpose. If you have general knowledge questions that aren't answered by an article, you can post them at the Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Macbeth was originally in English, it would seriously be more work to find a version that is not in English. The bottom of the article contains several links to multiple copies of the play.  Did you mean "in modern English" instead of "in (early modern) English?" Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Scene
The speech Lady Macbeth makes in which she claims Macbeth "too full o'th'milk of human kindness" is said in this article as being in Act I scene IV, when it is actually in Act 1 scene V.
 * True! Good catch. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 16:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture
Shouldn't some mention be made of references to Macbeth in pop culture? I'm thinking specifically of Doctor Who and Jimmy Neutron, both of which had episodes specifically centering around the play.

38.101.133.200 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)missmaple

ambiguity
In plot summary:

"King Duncan welcomes and praises Macbeth and Banquo, and declares that he will spend the night at Macbeth's castle at Inverness; he also names his son Malcolm as his heir."

This sentence is ambiguous as to whose son Malcolm is--Duncan's or Macbeth's. Could it be reworded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.78.163 (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Middleton and OUP
Although we note that Middleton had a hand in the play, I see that John Sutherland writes in Saturday's Guardian that "Macbeth, for example, is a very easy play for unknowledgeable audiences to take on board (perhaps because it wasn't written by Shakespeare: OUP nowadays attribute it to Thomas Middleton)." This came as a surprise to me. Should we say anything about the OUP stance in the article (it seems obvious that we should)? Ericoides (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

the Guardian overstates the case: thomasmiddleton.org cites OUP computer-analysis research saying Middleton wrote "as much as 10%" and the OUP's own "Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works" edited by Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino places Macbeth only in "works by major Renaissance playwrights in which Middleton had a hand: including Jonson, Webster, and Shakespeare" So it would seem the OUP says nothing of the sort, but in fact says what the Wikipedia page says, that Middleton did change and embellish the text. --Teledyn (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Teledyn. Silly old Guardian! Ericoides (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

thane of cawdor
I don't think Macdonwald is the original Thane of Cawdor that Macbeth receives his title from. Act I, scene iv has Duncan relay news to Macbeth of the Thane's execution. However, Macdonwald had already been slain by Macbeth at Forress before the play begins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.200.106.246 (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please correct description of macbeth poster...
the first sentence of the macbeth poster description on the article page reads: "A poster for a c. 1884 American production of Macbeth, starring Thomas W. weene."

apart from the missing capitalization, the actor's last name is keene, not "weene". you can verify this by checking the description of the picture in wikimedia commons - which reads: "Poster of Thos. W. Keene in William Shakespeare's MacBeth, c. 1884."


 * Thanks for catching this error. It is now fixed due to your vigilance. MarnetteD | Talk 18:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you & i forgot to sign... sorry! --96.63.2.100 (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I suspect that it was either a test edit or outright vandalism that happened some time in the past. No problem on forgetting to sign - we all have done that before. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"Further Reading" Section
User:Tom Reedy Why was this cite deleted? IIRC the article is indexed in World Shakespeare Bibliography. Knitwitted (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:ONEWAY. See the Wiki Brief Chronicles entry. Many non-RS sources are listed in the WSB; mere listing does not bestow WP:RS status. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Masculinity?
Hi,

I have to agree with whoever tagged that section with an "OR" warning. It doesn't have a single reference, apart from a brief mention, in the text, of "some" "critics" who think something. No names, publications or other references. And when this all concludes with "the feeling nature of true masculinity", the overly assertive nature of these paragraphs is brought to light; and that nature is mere Sunday School exhortations towards morality. Perhaps not quite what the Bard intended. Now, the main problem is not the conclusions, but the relentless use of naked assertion to establish interpretations as facts. When Lady Macbeth says this and that, she is obrivusly doing this here thingy and edivently doing that other, as if the play would admit one interpretation only. As if ANYBODY (sry) agreeed to the meaning of (and interpretation of, and effect of ) art. Or, to aim lower, media output. Problematically, even given that the interpretation in the article is not, prima facie, wrong, it conveys the attitude that any critic's methodology need not consist in anything else than casting his (or, on the off chance, ahaha, her) prejudices into ordinary declarative sentences in English language for it to constitute valid analysis (contrast it with the character analysis in the Wikipedia article "Macbeth_(character)" - unless articles are _supposed_ to contradict one another ....?). If so, and yet people have no problems reading "... "Macbeth" traces the root of chaos and evil to women ..." and "... the aggression of the female characters is more striking because it contradicts expectations of how women ought to behave ..." and at the same time not thinking "projecting 21. century values 500 years back in time", pls disregard this message.

85.166.162.202 (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this certainly, at the very least, needs verification. I doubt this was added via consensus. Breckham101 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As cursory Google search suggests that this is a topic of discussion amongst literary writers.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 12:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it should be easy to cite references, right? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, it appears that both sections were plagiarized from Sparknotes. I have deleted them. Please do not restore the same material. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes in these cases, it may be the other way around, but if you're sure, then that should be good enough.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The plagairized material was added in 2012. The Sparknotes material is copyrighted 2002. I've notified the editor who made the edits to revert the rest of his edits on the page, but so far he has not responded, nor do I think he will, which means that the page needs a scrubbing and a rewrite. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Meaning" of the play
I notice that User:FelixKay has added some Deep Thought (unfortunately unsourced) to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH among others. The term probable was used which also made it WP:SPECULATION MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary
According to the WikiProject Shakespeare page, "Wikipedia asks for plot synopses to stay within 500-700 words, with a ceiling of 900 words in special circumstances only. The summary is not to be subdivided in further Acts and scenes." Why then is Macbeth's plot synopses divided into Acts? 116.14.187.228 (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no 'In popular culture' section?
There are many parodies and references to Macbeth in TV programs, books and movies, a popular culture section would not go amiss here. Parodies and references include Terry Pratchet's Wyrd sisters, one of my favourite fantasy novels.Akaishi42 (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Look in the Legacy section. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Fringe" theory
The theory that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym is likely a minority view, but it is a view that has attracted much attention. Many luminaries, including Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles to name a few have questioned the traditional attribution. Supreme Court justices have been recent additions to this list. Judging from the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt," many educated and accomplished individuals doubt the orthodox view. In light of this, it seems unfair to call the Oxfordian position on the authorship question a "fringe" view, and more space should be devoted to this view in the "Macbeth" article and other articles on "Shakespeare".

Richard F. Whalen has a crystalline interpretation of "Macbeth" that follows logically and easily from the life of Edward de Vere. This, too, would be a valuable addition to this article.

Again, these are not "fringe" views. They are the views of a substantial minority. It is wrong to characterize these views in that way.

We should be allowed to change the article to reflect differing opinions on the issue--as long as they attract large and credible support--even if they are not the majority viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFeinberg (talk • contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "We should be allowed to change the article to reflect differing opinions on the issue--as long as they attract large and credible support". That's the thing: it isn't large nor does it attract credible support. See Shakespeare authorship question. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It does attract credible support. Many famous celebrities and intellectuals have embraced alternative authorship theories, principally the Oxfordian theory. John Paul Stevens has credibility. Derek Jacobi does as well. It is a minority view, but is not a fringe view. And a minority view can still have a large following, as this one does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFeinberg (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Celebrity endorsements do not trump the academic consensus, nor is there any evidence that it attracts more than a small fringe of believers. If you have any, you are welcome to post it for discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a section in the Shakespeare article about authorship which redirects to an entire separate article on the authorship question. To me this seems sufficient, and the correct place for it. The alternative authorship theories refer to Shakespeare not just MacBeth, and those theories encompass all of the Bard's work, not generally suggesting that one person wrote MacBeth and another person wrote Hamlet, etc., so it hardly seems appropriate to discuss this theory in every article of every work credited to Shakespeare (not to mention having to standardize and update every such section across all those articles). I see it as a separate topic which, rightly, has a separate article. Henry chianski (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Date and text deletions
I have deleted some critical material that was placed in the date and text section. It can be recovered and integrated into the proper section if anyone so chooses, but if they do, please use the same reference citation style. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I find the last paragraph of Date and Text to be very unclear if not even contradictory. Does the First Folio contain Middleton's Hecate scenes or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.50.113 (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I took a swing at clarifying this paragraph (and added citations). Yes, Hecate is part of the First Folio. But her scenes are believed to be additions to Shakespeare's original version (from which the Folio would have been printed), due to it being narratively spurious, metrically irregular, and on account of an unusual stage direction that echoes to Middleton... however these beliefs are not universally accepted by scholars. Henry chianski (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Play date in lead section
A pre-1603 date for Macbeth is not widely accepted by scholars. The consensus seems to be 1606. More liberally it is 1603-1606. These are the dates supported by the Chronology of Shakespeare%27s_plays article. I am revising the lead section date to reflect the scholarly consensus of 1606 as per both Arden and Oxford. Henry chianski (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I came here noticing the recent edit in watchlist and am very surprised to find a date of 1599 in the lede. Are there any editors of a scholarly edition that support a pre-1603 date? I'd be surprised to find any seriously advancing a proposal of 03-05, let alone 1599. I only have the Oxford collected and a New Cambridge single-ed, so I haven't changed the lede yet. But I propose that the wording ought to be amended to reflect scholarly consensus (if it is so) of 1606. Authorship gadflies not withstanding, needless to say.  • DP •  {huh?} 19:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * HC updated, which is fine with me. But a little concerned about the wording now... it kind of implies written 06, performed 11, which I don't think is an implication we'd want. Not sure the evidence of performance in historical record is most relevant for lede section anyhow and might be undue etc. A more minor note, personally, would prefer to avoid 'believed' in preference for the passive "is thought to have been first performed in 1606" -- it's a conclusion based on weighing evidence by the editors of each edition, not an article of faith. I'll go ahead and edit, but thought i'd explain here first.  • DP •  {huh?} 19:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately there isn't standardization across Shakespeare articles, or other plays, in terms of whether "first performance" is notable enough for lead sections, or whether it belongs in "Performance History." I looked at Hamlet, Othello, Lear, Caesar, and a bunch of others, and it really varies. In this case, the 1611 performance (as far I know) is the first mention of the play in any record, and it wasn't published until 1623. As far as "believed" - this term is used in many of these articles rather than "thought" -- I think believed is more formal but I have no strong feeling. Essentially it is all conjecture except for the 1611 performance and 1623 Folio printing. Henry chianski (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: conjecture, yes, of course -- in which case the criterion of consensus among the play's scholarly editors applies. My point is that we should avoid the implication that it remained unperformed for five years. About to add another source supporting the new sequence.  • DP •  {huh?} 20:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:DionysosProteus ...I like your edits & streamlining. The problem now is that the performance date does not match the statements made by the sources (at least Brooke & Clark, the Oxford and Arden versions). The sources don't state that the play was "first performed" in 1606. I think what had been there - 1606 as consensus date of writing, 1611 as first recorded performance - is the most accurate version. But I hear you that "first performance" may be irrelevant for lead. As such, I'm going to change that back to 1606 as written by date. I like your other edits cleaning up the King James info and all the citation clean-ups. Henry chianski (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm sure I have sources here that'll support the first performed claim, so should be easily enough fixed. I would suggest that the first performance of a play is more important than when it was written (not that that's irrelevant, obvs). There is also a standard argument in Theatre Studies that turns on the -wright/-writer distinction, leading some (Wickham, eg) to use the term "play-maker" to avoid sense of literature being written. For S, of course, functions as that *as well*, but later, historically. But dating performances in this period is notoriously troublesome. I'll try to dig around in what i have later tonight and see what i can find.  • DP •  {huh?} 16:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I reread the latest Arden (3rd) last night and they confirm that Forman 1611 was the earliest account of a performance, so the Performance Hist section seems pretty on-point with that (excepting the questions below about Folio vs Forman). Of course it was probably performed in 1606 but I don't know of any historical account prior to 1611 (thus the Blackfriar's stuff is speculation).  Henry chianski (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * (Apologies if this is a too detailed - presenting results of examining the sources re:date) Do you or any other editors happen to have access to the Harold Bloom reader that's cited for the 1599 claim? No preview online, unfortunately. It'd be good to take a look at the context for such a dubious claim (who exactly claimed it; does 'scholar' mean a professional or an amateur trying to support an authorship house of cards; what B says about that claim, etc.)... I suspect it's 'undue' for this article to offer 1599 at the first date a Wiki reader encounters in the date section, but obvs it's important to take a close look before changing/deleting it. I might try to tidy up some of the wording in the date section (to say RB 'may' have first performed M is a bit silly, I'd say, and quite undue etc.). For the first performance date, Gurr, Thomson, and Wickham all explicitly state first performance in 1606 and all are major figures in the field (I'll add the citations shortly) -- so we have verifiability for our purposes for what remains the scholarly consensus conclusion. That said, there might be more to say... In general, it would be strange for Shakespeare to have written a play and for it not to be performed by the King's Men soon thereafter, as per standard practice (making 1610/11 of the documented perf extrememly unlikely as the premiere -- indeed, it's unusual to have a contemporary account of that nature for a Shakespeare play, generally speaking). The first performance date is qualified in this particular case, however, by the fact that the playhouses were closed in the second half of 1606 thanks to plague (Braunmuller, 8-9). I'm quite concerned to find that the article in its present form misrepresents Braunmuller's detailed and nuanced discussion in the New Cambridge. He does qualify the claim about the sybils, which prob belongs in a footnote (Eliz was greeted in same way with x3). He doesn't offer any counter-claims/argument for the Porter's equivocating farmer. The ref to the Tiger is "errily precise reference" that puts those lines, at the very least, post-June 06, he says. He categorically does not say, however, that the date is 1603. At the risk of upsetting someone and in lieu of trawling the edit history to find out who wrote it, my sense is that the source has been manipulated somewhat, whether inadvertently or to support a date stretch for 'other' reasons, because the citation gives only the very first part of a substantial section treating the dating and sources (5-8, rather than 2-15). He says, for example, on p. 9 that the King's Men "might have" premiered the play at court in 1606 while the theatres remained closed. He also discusses the possibility that for Macbeth that same argument might hold as that advanced by Parker for Coriolanus (the Oxford single ed. editor) that under the "difficult conditions" of sustained closures from plague, the play was rehearsed in front of a paying audience (p.9 also). Regardless of first performance, he also suggests S "could have" used Camden as a source (1605) and "may have" used a play by Daniel (1605). Nowhere in his intro does he explicitly state his own conclusion about an exact date, but it's clear from the tone of many of the notes that he thinks the balance of probability is post-1605.  • DP •  {huh?} 22:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for digging into all that. I do not have access to Bloom.  My hunch is that 1599 is referenced as an "earliest" date based on one of the source printings, perhaps?  I'd agree that (barring a contrary source) it's undue for this article, given that 1603-1606 is the window for most scholars.  Re: Braunmuller, I concur that "argues only for an earliest date of 1603" is a misreading of pages 2-15 and certainly of 5-8 and ought to be removed.  Also agree about his discussion of sibyls being more nuanced, and is not a widely-argued point, though here that is cited to Kermode which I don't have.  Kermode is also the source for the paragraph about the Porter/Garnet (which could stand a style revision at the very least).  Braunmuller even says (p.5) "claims for a topical Macbeth cannot be substantiated and may be circular" -- which undermines the Porter stuff as well as (p.4) the theory that M was performed before King James (in Performance section of article).  He also puts "evidence" in quotes in that discussion.  I would support a clean-up of these areas.  Also agree that Burbage reference seems irrelevant.  Of course Burb "probably" premiered many of S's roles, but there is no account of it for MB.  Brooke (p.6) says that the beheaded effect was "achieved, no doubt, by a life mask of Burbage" but never says (only implies) that he probably played the role.  I am removing those statements therefore.  I also think there's something better to note regarding Forman other than the supposed mismatch with the Folio, or a better example at least.  Clark/Arden seems to paint Orgel as rather extreme, but I haven't read Orgel.  Henry chianski (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, there is an idea that I think Chambers first proposed of a Chamberlain's Men Ur-Macbeth, like the Ur-Hamlet, now lost. But no suggestion it was by Shakespeare (if it even existed at all). That might be the source of the 1599 claim, but without Bloom, can't tell.


 * I think I'm getting a different sense from you of Braunmuller's argument. That might be because we understand the function of equivocation a little differently (see section below)? In truth, my first response to looking at his text was irritation that he hadn't followed the standard New Cambridge segmentation and provided a date section--looks to me like he tried to avoid offering an opinion by doing so (most texts conclude with a "so, on balance of probabilty, 16xx" kind of statement). I'd suggest it doesn't so much undermine the porter equivocator -- it's more that he just fails to offer a counter-argument to explain why it would be inappropriate to link the two. And he suggests it "may" have been premiered for James at court. Thomson argues it was (see section below). I mentioned the sybils since that's the only link he offers evidence against. The others (p.6) are all offered in the form "If, then" with no counter-argument as to why the connection is invalid. He mentions Hawkin's refutation of Paul's theory about the King of Denmark's visit approvingly in a footnote (p.8#n3). I notice too the phrasing on p.9 "hypothesis and circumstantial evidence [...] yet (discussion of English 'scot' plays). I suspect we may just be suffering from an insufficiently diverse section of sources from which to draw for the article. Perhaps there are some studies (Thomson is particularly good for this sort of thing, but there're plenty of others) that focus on Jacobean actors/acting/performances that will help with the sourcing...


 * I guess Braunmuller's, ha, equivocation soured me to him as a great source for this section. I got the impression he's trying to question all of the theories with "cannot be substantiated" and putting "evidence" in quotes, maybe just covering his butt, and certainly nothing is refuted by this.  The equivocation-Garnet connection is widely supported, but a better source must be available than Braunmuller who mentions it in one tentative paragraph.  So yes, broadening the sources seems like the best move.  This article references a smattering of possibilities: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/gunpowderplot.html


 * It was the wording of the Burbage bit I wasn't sure about. Braunmuller says ""Richard Burbage, the actor who probably first played Macbeth" p.59. There'll be plenty of sources to support an scholarly consensus thing for verifiability for our purposes, and I think he ought to be mentioned. I'd even suggest he probably belongs in the lede...


 * I removed it b/c the Brooke citation, which is assumptive, didn't match the statement. If you think it's notable then I'd say put it back in citing the Braunmuller you found.  Not sure I agree with the lede, b/c in that case Burbage should be mentioned in every play that he "probably" premiered (only the Hamlet article has him in its lede and some articles don't mention him at all, e.g. Othello ... though that should be remedied).  I do think it could go in the lede of the Macbeth_(character) article.


 * And yes, the problem with Forman is the framing the article gives it, not its presence as such.  • DP •  {huh?} 20:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede wording
Thought I'd flag a couple of things too about the lede: (1) I appreciate that summarising is difficult (one of the reasons minor pages are often far better than major ones), but the 'tag-line' "damaging physical and psychological effects of political ambition on those who seek power for its own sake" doesn't seem right to me. Isn't the point not what harm it does to M & LadyM personally, though that is dramatised too, but rather the harm caused more broadly (murders abound, civil war, etc.). And with few exceptions, who doesn't seek power "for it's own sake"? Revolutionaries and idealists seeking to overturn a corrupt social order are one thing, but doesn't the goal given here apply to everyone in Elizabethan/Jacobean plays who experiences "the thirst for reign and sweetness of a crown", as Tamburlaine famously puts it? (2) Also, the bland and generic "It has been adapted to film, television, opera, novels, comics, and other media." seems rather pointless, esp given the prominence it gives to the opera over other adaptations. Which Shakespeare play hasn't been adapted all over the place? If there's something significant to say about that process or particular instances, then that might be different... I don't have a suggestion of a better wording for the tag-line, but perhaps we might agree on something that grasps the dynamic of the play a little more firmly?  • DP •  {huh?} 23:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree that the bit about adaptation lengthens the lead without much purpose; it's a universal statement for Shakespeare and every other major playwright. I'm also iffy on whether Henry Garnet deserves lead-status.  It only pertains to the Porter scene, hardly the play as a whole, and if anything it should be noted that the play is associated with James' ascension.  In fact, is it necessary to discuss sources at all in the lead?  Re: the "logline"  another option is to omit it and just let the narrative synopsis (2nd paragraph) speak for itself.  Henry chianski (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that from what I've read in the past couple of days, the Garnet reference does belong there. Thomson in Shakespeare's Professional Career, for example, discusses it in his shortish section on the play (176-179), arguing that the concern with equivocation links Mc with Lear (I point out the shortish nature, since its prominence in such seems relevant). I'd also suggest it's not just the Porter. The Witches equivocate, right? That's what makes them so slippery: I pull in resolution, and begin To doubt the equivocation of the fiend That lies like truth: 'Fear not, till Birnam wood Do come to Dunsinane:' and now a wood Comes toward Dunsinane. Other characters do, too. Thomson links it with the modern sense of the politician being "economical with the truth", as distinct from an outright lie. James Shapiro also devotes something like a third of his episode on Equivocation in his TV series The King and the Playwright to that relationship.


 * True, it is thematically imbued throughout the story. But the play contains scores of themes, references, and associations; Garnet is only one of them.  I don't see it as pervasive enough that (for instance) the main characters or plot lines are based on him, in which case I'd say it belongs in the lede... To me it is more appropriate in the current sections.


 * Except that it is the very thing that makes for the tragedy in plot terms--if the witches had been straight up and not equivocated, he'd be a happy Thane and no one would die.  • DP •  {huh?} 03:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that just dropping the logline is the simplest solution, in lieu of bashing out something new.

In passing, the Thomson section has a nice bit about the differences court/globe performances made, arguing that the mirror in the parade of kings was meant to be positioned such that James would have seen his face in it while watching the play (which makes for a very literal embodiment of the King's POV that Foucault talks about).


 * Interesting!

I've become distracted by Volpone, but I'll come back when I get a chance and add what I've found.  • DP •  {huh?} 19:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Shakespeare's day to the Interregnum / Forman
I don't understand how the excerpted line from Forman's account is relevant? Isn't he referring to 2.2? This is in the Folio, when Duncan is killed and Lady M takes the dagger, and Macbeth wonders if his hands will ever be washed of blood. 5.1 is also in the Folio, when Lady M has her "out damned spot" sleepwalking speech. The statement that "the following does not accord with anything in the Folio text" is pretty weird... am I missing something? Not that Forman's account isn't problematic to scholars, but this example seems useless. Arden, for instance, discusses that Forman not only got some facts wrong about this play but got facts wrong about other plays he recorded seeing, so his discrepancies are hardly the be-all end-all of the debate. The fact that he omits "the apparition scene, or of Hecate, of the man not of woman born, or of Birnam Wood" doesn't seem very convincing... weren't there presumably a lot of details he omitted? I'm not going to edit this right now but just trying to raise the question. I'll reread the Arden and Oxford views on this -- maybe there are more relevant points to make about Forman. Henry chianski (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strangely, having only glanced through the article when i edited, I was troubled by that bit too.  • DP •  {huh?} 16:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the example given by Orgel of a scene that fails to "accord with anything in the Folio text." Orgel is the only source here and I can't find examples of other scholars singling out this moment as being unusual. Personally I am baffled by Orgel's selection because this seems to me to be Act 2 Scene 2: Macbeth mentions blood on his hands, wonders if it will come out (perhaps implying that he is attempting to wipe it), Lady M takes the dagger, and later is haunted by the blood that does not seem to wash out. If someone can show that Orgel is not an outlier here then this could be restored. Most seem only to agree that Forman's omission of Hecate and the cauldron is odd, only because Forman was apparently obsessed with witchcraft. Forman's account is extraordinarily brief; so of course he omitted most of the play. There seems to be a fringe camp theory that Forman's account is proof of a different text. Contrarily, there is scholarship (Clark, Scragg) suggesting that Forman might be partially remembering Holinshed instead of the play of Macbeth. Henry chianski (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of WP:RFC regarding including historical figures in navboxes
Join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20110715112511/http://pretallez.com/onstage/theatre/broadway/macbeth/macbeth_curse.html to http://pretallez.com/onstage/theatre/broadway/macbeth/macbeth_curse.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715112511/http://pretallez.com/onstage/theatre/broadway/macbeth/macbeth_curse.html to http://pretallez.com/onstage/theatre/broadway/macbeth/macbeth_curse.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Unused sources removed from article
As part of the recent references cleanup I found a number of sources that were listed but which were not actually cited in the article. I'm collecting them here for future reference. Note that several of these look like stuff we should be citing, so I suspect the lack of such cites is actually due to attrition. Thus it would probably be a very good idea to go through them with that in mind, and reintroduce them as appropriate.



Cheers, --Xover (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Macdonwald?
The play text says Macdonwald but this article changes that to Mcdonald... why? (Scene 1.2)Henry chianski (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This appears to now be fixed? In any case, both the editions I had to hand (Folger and Arden second series) use "Macdonwald", as is also the case in F1. F2 and on emend this to "Macdonnell" for some reason, and Holinshed used "Makdowald", but I've never seen those forms used in any other edition. The Oxford edition by Brooke however, uses "Macdonald" without commentary. On the surface of it I find this choice inexplicable, but I haven't really looked into the issue. Absent any substantive argument in favour of "Macdonald" (or the corrupted variant "Mcdonald"), I see no reason we should use anything except "Macdonwald" here. --Xover (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks for following up! Henry chianski (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hospitality
In the time frame the play is set, and even in Shakespeare's time, regicide and murder were part of feudal power struggles, and were understood as bad but necessary at times. Guilt for this is not what he is cursed by. Macbeth's gross violation of the customs of hospitality, first in murdering Duncan, then Banquo, and attempting the murder of Macduff, while all were under the protection of a guest, is the central sin of this play. Mythologically it is what opens the door to the supernatural encounters with ghosts, and the superstitious cause of his and his wife's descent into madness. Yet essentially nothing of this is mentioned in this article. -- 208.81.184.11 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Defenceless?
In the final paragraph of act I, in says they will be "defenceless"... is this correct? shouldn't it be "defenseless"? 113.173.24.88 (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Big change need talk
I edited the plot, noting that I "opted to condense; correct; minimise interpretation; and facilitate flow". This was swiftly reverted by MarnetteD, noting that "this big of a change needs discussion on the talk page". I am tentatively supposing that MarnetteD is not creating such discussion, therefore I am doing that.

It would be extremely long and complicated to explain every problem with the plot-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-me. I will just arbitrarily take what is there near the beginning: "In the following scene, Macbeth and Banquo discuss the weather and their victory. As they wander onto a heath, the Three Witches enter and greet them with prophecies."

The witches have been on stage for 37 lines by the time Macbeth and Banquo enter, who, rather than just "discussing the weather", which is grossly banal, are rather involved in the complicated echoing that occurs throughout the play (here being (1.1.9): "Fair is foul, and foul is fair"; (1.3.38) "So foul and fair a day I have not seen").

If fixing this stuff really requires discussion, here we are. Untitled50reg (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Try a little WP:AGF. Your edit was a major change to the structure of a plot section. That section was stable for a number of years. WP:BOLD is fine and dandy but I would like to get input from others as to its overall effect on the article. If no one else responds by August 19th then your changes can be restored. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ignorance on my part is probably more relevant than any lack of AGF. Most relevant of that here was what needed discussion. For example, I was not even sure if the bigness of the change was not just from a cursory look at the numbers.Untitled50reg (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I accidentally poked "about this page", and then I went to WikiProject Shakespeare, where I found: "Wikipedia asks for plot synopses to stay within 500–700 words, with a ceiling of 900 words in special circumstances only. The summary is not to be subdivided in further Acts and scenes. Acts and scene divisions do not exist in the earliest Shakespeare texts and were probably added by later editors. Furthermore, sub-dividing synopses into acts and scenes could make this section too long. Key idea here: synopsis means to summarize the vital plot points of the play, not to re-tell the entire plot in your own words."


 * So we might have to reconsider the whole thing anyway. But I note that other articles have such Act divisions, so am not sure what is best to do about this. I just revised what I found there before me. Untitled50reg (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking an interest in the article! I agree with that a change this large to a text that has been stable for so long needs to be discussed, and plot summaries for Shakespeare's plays have some traps for the unwary that makes additional eyes on such changes a good idea.The guidelines for plot summaries on Wikipedia are written very much with typical modern media in mind, and tries to handle everything from TV episodes, through popular books, modern movies, comic books, etc.; and as a response to the accumulation of fancruft (the Trekkies go a little overboard some times ;D). They are just guidelines that can be ignored when there is a good reason to do so, and Shakespeare's plays tick many of those boxes. They often have very involved plots; the details of the plot have amassed a great amount of critical and scholarly attention over the centuries; and relatively detailed parts of the plot are relevant for aspects discussed elsewhere in the article. This tends to justify longer summaries in Shakespeare play articles than is the norm for other relevant articles. The extreme case (and what we should probably view as the absolute upper limit) is Hamlet. A lot of effort was put into that summary (you probably wouldn't believe just how much), from a lot of people with differing areas of expertise, and it passed through the Featured Article process at a time when there were still a significant number of participants with a humanities background around. But Hamlet is unique, so every other play should come in well under that length; and the very briefness of Macbeth itself argues we should try to keep it as short as we can.In any case… I'll try to take a closer look at your proposed revision and chime in if I have anything worthwhile to say. --Xover (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Trekkies are a menace, sure. The really unforgivable thing about this article is that it doesn't mention Pterry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It is one salient problem with Wikipedia that my edit must be discussed only because what it replaced had been there quite comfortably, for a long time, before I kicked it off. It apparently doesn't matter that what I kicked off was stinking. If time is nobody's friend (time, by the way, should have a place in the article), just pick up Macbeth at 1.3, and read how, according to the stinking, Macbeth and Banquo discuss the weather, before the witches enter. I stand rapt in the wonder of what authority enshrines here. Any fears pertaining to revisions' effects on the article should remind themselves that it is not a good article. I am sick at heart when I behold, etc, Untitled50reg (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It can indeed feel a little bureaucratic at times, but it's an inevitable consequence of a global collaborative project with consensus-based decision processes and anonymous contributors (so no way to verify qualifications, and no formal requirements for contributing). Content that has existed without complaint for a long time is considered to have implied consensus. Large changes to such should generally be discussed first because what's happening is actually an attempt to change the existing consensus. Smaller changes are not usually considered to need prior discussion, and even for somewhat larger changes it is ok to try the change and then see if anybody objects (by reverting it). But best practice is to propose larger changes on the talk page first to see if anybody objects.When you've seen some of the types of changes that somebody somewhere wants in articles here the need for this somewhat cumbersome approach becomes much clearer. --Xover (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of proposed changes to plot summary
Since I needed to structure it a bit for my own needs, I'll drop a copy here in case it's useful for anyone else.

I haven't looked at the details, but I must say the greater brevity certainly looks promising. :) --Xover (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I have some idea of what sort of questionable changes are sometimes made. I certainly recognise the general penchant for free and otherwise-worthless sources. I will try to remember to broach big changes in Talk pages; at least if I decide to usurp Macbeth, and cough it back all slobbery. For now, I just whimsically wondered how bad the Macbeth article might be, went straight to the plot, didn't like it, etc.. I have meanwhile been making "cursory scrubs" to Euripides, and, having finished him, moved on to start Sophocles, but am unsure if I really want to spend all this time with Wikipedia. Accordingly, any usurping is only a maybe in an offing, and your consent is not liable to any harm from me.Untitled50reg (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I finally found the time to have a proper look at your proposed changes (apologies that it took so long); and while I wasn't able to give it nearly the attention it deserves, I did at least skim it enough to decide I've no objections to it. I think it could certainly do with some copy-editing for consistency and clarity (in some parts you have "removed interpretation" to the point that I fear it leaves the reader in the dark). But that's really just nitpicking: the existing plot summary needed copy-editing too and your version has succinctness going for it. If someone is inclined to further improve it, my opinion is that they would be better served starting from this than the more verbose original.In any case… I have no objections, and nobody else has indicated an objection here (MarnetteD didn't indicate specific objections, just that a discussion was needed), so you can probably go ahead and consider this consensus for your changes. --Xover (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am, of course, content for anyone to mangle any edit I make. "Food for powder, food for powder; they'll fill a pit as well as better", as Falstaff possibly says somewhere. But, of course of course, I am not myself going to revert a revert.Untitled50reg (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * (For example, there were recently some edits made to Gargantua and Pantagruel---some of them patently worsening what was there---but, because the edits edited what I wrote, I only shake my head at them, ie, do not edit)Untitled50reg (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * (And, incidentally, G&P is the reason I started editing Wikipedia, for the same reason I edited Macbethplot, namely, so offended by what I found there.)Untitled50reg (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have changed my mind about not-editing me-edits, becoming more suspicious that people are generally not-inclined to edit. Accordingly, both G&P and Macbeth have been edited by me. Accordingly, I tie up this need-talk, and throw it mewling into oblivion. Untitled50reg (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
Since I accidentally started stirring some words around with my finger, I considered it plausible that I might also round about the cauldron go and in the poisoned entrails throw. I was going to make a private note of what seemed obviously missing, but supposed it may as well go here.
 * Source: some book of devilry, also used for King Lear, Impostures, or such similar part of the name which i have forgotten.
 * Source: Scot's Discoverie.
 * Theme: Time
 * Theme: Vision
 * Language: generals and particulars altogether wanting.

I invite others to add things either here or to the article. I commit myself nothing. Untitled50reg (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Seneca.Untitled50reg (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Original research and citation cleanup
Hi there. I've tagged this article with Original research because it appears that there are quite a few (read: many) statements that are purely supported by citations to the actual text of the play. I'm well aware that many publications of Macbeth include explanatory or supplementary notes, and that may be the occasion here, but several quotes are supporting statements well into a quarter or beyond into the book - unless publications are having upwards of ~200 pages of explanatory notes, I think it's pretty likely that several of these statements are original research.

Also, there seems to be a bit of an issue here with using citations. While the current state of the citations kind of gets us there, they generally don't abide by MOS:REF in terms of duplication. The Sources section has been manually created and doesn't follow any real convention, making it incredibly unmaintainable. The citations sections also take up around a fifth of the entire article length, which is quite poor considering that there are over 60 Citation needed tags and that there are very significantly more short notes than actual citations (one book passage is cited in nine different refs etc). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:PLOTCITE: Plotsum flotsam secondary jettisoned plotsum primary write-down, primrose way to the everlasting bonfire. Thou canst not say I did it. Never shake thy story books at me. Untitled50reg (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Uhm... okay then. Not only is How to write a plot summary an essay not a policy (ironically, you might find this essay relevant), but that page is about plot summaries, not entire articles. The original research, for the largest part, is not in the plot summary section, but rather the surrounding commentary. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I spied the little tag in the plot section and for this reason sectioned it so. And for the rules: Wikipedia is swarming with rules and editors who swarm and broadside with such balls and noise of them that the custom hath made it in me a property of wheeziness. That is, I opted for a gam. Thereto I confess I am delighted to have received more rules therein. I will stay in my own ship. Untitled50reg (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The main image
Since I am involving myself here now, I thought I would say that I really hate the main image of the article. I had a look around earlier, and the best I could find was probably:

File:First Folio, Shakespeare - 0738.jpg

File:Lady Macbeth poster, 1912 -- Henri Gaudier-Brzeska.jpg

File:Leopolda Dostalová - Lady Macbeth 1916 1.jpg

Such would be my order of preference. Hopefully others can hop in with votes and/or other options (including keeping the current one). Untitled50reg (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello ! I hope you don't mind that I tweaked your post a little like so (in general one shouldn't mess with others talkpage comments per WP:TPO)


 * IMO, I have to say, I prefer the current image to any of your suggestions, but this is very subjective territory. It is nice-looking (though a little cartoonish), shows a kind of "overview" and can easily be identified as Macbeth-related, so it fits MOS:LEADIMAGE fairly well. Again, that's my view. The book is dull, the painting is wierd and the striking photo lacks the title-role (I think). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not mind; I probably would have done the same, if I knew how.


 * I wonder if you would suppose the current image appropriate if it did not say "Macbeth"?


 * My thoughts concerning the proffered three were that the book is indeed arguably dull, but it is the most exact representation, probably, of what the article is about. The painting is indeed weird, but represents an iconic scene in a weird play (and reminded me of the image at Medea (play)). For the third, I thought it was a significantly better representation of the mood of the play than the current image (though, indeed, Lady Macbeth).


 * Ultimately, the elephant in the room is copyright.Untitled50reg (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Charles Kean as Macbeth 1858.jpg—Charles Kean as Macbeth 1858
 * I'd say that even without the word, that pic is easier to guess as Macbeth than #2 and #3. Yup, copyright limits us, otherwise we could use a nice highres daggerscene with Plummer, Olivier or whatever. The Charles Kean one isn't awful. One can argue that the article is about a play, and a play is more people on a stage than words on paper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have spent several hours hunting, particularly inspired by what you said. For highres people on a stage, that is available for us to use, I believe, after my several hours, that this one cannot be bettered:

File:DFERIA 2019-Macbeth.jpg—Macbeth (Mikel Losada) and Lady Macbeth (Miren Gaztañaga)


 * Otherwise, I can only throw this one into the pot:

File:Macbeth and the Witches (Barker, 1830).jpg—Macbeth and the Witches (Barker, 1830) Untitled50reg (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I also found this one, I suppose.

File:Macbeth, the three witches, Hecate, and the eight kings, in a cave. Stipple print by R. Thew after J. Reynolds, 1 December 1802.jpg—Macbeth Untitled50reg (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Probably the last one I will dig up:

File:Macbeth Act One Scene Three, Print James Stow, After Richard Westall.jpg—Macbeth Act One Scene Three Untitled50reg (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I was wrong; I am still digging:

File:Bob Frazer (Macbeth) and Colleen Wheeler (Lady Macbeth) in Macbeth at Bard on the Beach. Photo, David Blue.jpg—Bob Frazer (Macbeth) and Colleen Wheeler (Lady Macbeth) File:Bob Frazer (Macbeth) et al in Macbeth at Bard on the Beach. Photo, David Blue.jpg—Macbeth File:Bob Frazer (Macbeth) in Macbeth at Bard on the Beach. Photo, David Blue.jpg—Bob Frazer as Macbeth File:KY Shakespeare in the Parks - Macbeth (16965410851).jpg—KY Shakespeare in the Parks - Macbeth (16965410851) Untitled50reg (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Macbeth 065.jpg—Macbeth File:Macbeth (32280144587).jpg—Macbeth (32280144587)


 * I will actually stop now. If none of these are acceptable, I shall throw physic to the dogs. Untitled50reg (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for picking the lead image: I think that about covers the main factors. --Xover (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead image should be striking and serve to draw the reader's interest
 * It should focus on the main character or characters, in this case Macbeth, or Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. The corollary is that it preferably should not also include other characters as that dilutes the focus.
 * An image with vivid colours is preferable to one with more muted or grey colours
 * Photos are generally strongly to be preferred over paintings, but photos usually have copyright issues that limit the options
 * A dramatic image is preferable to a more subtle or reflective one
 * A great dramatic black and white photo can be better than a less dramatic but colourful painting
 * The image should feature an actor in the role or roles that is notable as a Shakespearean actor
 * But this can include actors famous for other kinds of roles whose notability for the topic stems from being a A-list movie actor that took on a Shakesparean role. Like Charlton Heston as Marc Antony, or Elizabeth Taylor (Katharina) and Richard Burton (Petruchio) in The Taming of the Shrew.
 * More typically, due to copyright, this will be a painting (and rarely a photo) of an historical stage actor known for Shakespearean roles, like Edmund Kean, or David Garrick.
 * If the image is a painting it should be by a notable painter, preferably one notable for painting Shakespearean scenes like Henry Fuseli, Eugène Delacroix, John Everett Millais, or William Hogarth.
 * The same holds true for photographs, but this is rarely relevant (Annie Leibovitz didn't shoot much Shakespeare)
 * Lead images should preferably illustrate a notable or iconic scene or motif from the play, ideally identifiably so, to the degree we could caption it with the specific lines the characters are speaking at that moment
 * Lead character is preferable to iconic scene, but there are exceptions when the scene is sufficiently iconic (Hamlet and the skull of Yorick being the prime example: it is instantly recognisable for everyone)
 * Mores have changed, and we should change with it: if we have otherwise equally suitable images we should avoid images of white actors in blackface playing Othello or caricatured portrayals of Jews. But if those are the best we have, and there is a notable historic reason for it (i.e. Othello has been played by white actors in blackface for most of its existence, and that very fact is studied by scholars in the field), we should not shy away out of mere political correctness: cultural sensitivity does not mean historical falsification. This rationale, by the way, applies to the lead image: its purpose is to draw the reader in and wake their interest, and to stand for the article as a whole. In the body of the article no such sensitivity is merited: the criteria are to illustrate what the text of the article discusses, and in some articles that will be racism and anti-semitism as it relates to the play. Not a major point in this article, but I am including it as a nod to universal applicability.
 * An image of the title page from the First Folio is a relevant and safe choice (and rarely controversial), but it is awfully boring and we should avoid falling back to that crutch whenever we can.
 * If by some chance we have multiple excellent options that all meet the criteria, there is no reason we can't swap them in and out every few months or whatever. We've never done that, but there's no real reason we can't if merited.
 * I have refactored the images you found into a gallery up top of the thread and given each of them a number for easily discussing them. They're in the order you added them here, and the current lead image has been given #0 for reference. Hopefully that will make it easier to keep track. Please feel free to add further images at the end of the gallery tag (the syntax should be self-explanatory, but I'd be happy to help if it trips you up). --Xover (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I doubt I will add any others; I stick with my initial three, considering the others sops for Cerberus. Having read the ideal criteria, which I do not doubt is impossible to satisfy, I would put my pebble in number three.Untitled50reg (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Of the above, I think #6 is slightly better than the current. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I now doubt, most voluptuously, that anyone else is going to drop a pebble. Accordingly, I propose,, that spontaneously and authoritatively decide on 0, 3, or 6. Untitled50reg (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No real objection to that, it's something I'd trust Xover with, but my reading of this thread is that it's a very firm no consensus, so the 0 has it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A bit late to the party here, but for what it's worth, my preference would definitely be 6. Bertaut (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies that I've not followed up here; I've just simply not had the available time to give this the attention it deserves. In general, I don't think we need worry overmuch about the perfect lead image right now, just so long as it's better than the one that's there now (#0). And I'm not particularly fond of the current one, for mostly subjective reasons.Of the extant suggestions I could live with #4 and #6, with a slight preference for the former as more impactful in thumbnail format, without necessarily liking either very much. But let me lead your attention to an alternative you might not have considered: how about a nice tight crop of #10 that just focusses on the characters and the slightly mysterious (foggy) background? It lacks a lot of other factors, but is very dramatic (admittedly in a amateur-theatre kind of way, and Macbeth looks like he's in the middle of chewing the scenery) and might serve well to draw the reader's attention for that reason. #11 might work too under similar reasoning.I'd started looking for more alternatives when I ran completely out of time, and I'd found a few with potential. But as mentioned I don't think we need to wait for the perfect image: if we can agree on a better image than #0 then let's use that for now and worry about a more perfecter one later.Oh, and incidentally, I agree we currently have no actual consensus. But #6 looks like a strong contender on the numbers and absent any emphatic protests can probably be swapped in as the "least objectionable" until somebody comes up with something better. --Xover (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * For actors, and particularly the amateur-theatre kind of way: I myself even find the RSC offensively bad; and they are, I think, considered the highest quality. The RSC even makes their decent actors contemptible, with their jaded and absurd bodies. I will not even begin to bewail actors that patently do not understand what they are doing; or people who "make changes", as if Shakespeare did not know exactly what he was doing. But I can accept 6. Untitled50reg (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Though I will add that I'm not one of those who deify Shakespeare; I just have a very low opinion of many other people. Untitled50reg (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * News, lads, our wars are done. That is, sweltered venom sleeping got, boil thou first i' the charmed pot. Günther-Hofmann-Macbeth-1972.jpg [[File:Alexandre-Gabriel Decamps (1803-1860) - The Witches in 'Macbeth' - P350 - The Wallace Collection.jpg|thumb]] Untitled50reg (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Small edit
Near the beginning Macbeth is referred to as a Scottish general when he is a Scottish lord, I'd like to change that to be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A200ftLongSandworm (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Be bold! You generally don't need to ask permission to make changes on Wikipedia: just make the change and see if someone reverts it. If you are making large changes to an article, particularly a well developed or long-standing articles, it may be worthwhile to discuss the planned changes first (out of courtesy if nothing else). But most of the time you just make the change you think is right.Be prepared that others may disagree and revert you, and discussing your desired change with them on the talk page is the next step in that situation. There are also oodles of policy and guidelines (and some more or less unspoken conventions) about when and how it is ok to do this and that, but if you stick to smaller and presumed uncontroversial changes, and are quick to discuss your changes on the talk page when there is disagreement, you can pick those up over time. --Xover (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As for general/lord: the article on Macbeth (character) gives some background to his military background. Reading the play will confirm that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Update?
User:MJL added the template Update at the top of the article, with the edit summary "information should be added about the 2000 and 2022 revivals". Adding this template at the top without any further talksection and reason parameters will probably not generate the requested update (who's going to inspect edit summaries a few weeks from now?). It might be better placed, accompanied by a explanation, in the section "20th century to present". It's unclear which revivals are meant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The revivals I am referring to are the two Broadway revivals (the first one opened June 15, 2000 and closed 10 days later which put it on the list of shortest-running Broadway shows while the 2022 revival one will star Daniel Craig and Ruth Negga). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC) As for the 2000 revival, um.. I disagree. It was a noted failure which is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia (and so probably should be here as well). There was coverage from NY Times, AP News, BBC, and Variety (possibly more). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Michael Bednarek: That's weird.. Twinkle was supposed to add that edit summary to the reason parameter. Apologies for that.
 * I know nothing about those two revivals but surely not every performance needs to be recorded here? Something lasting only 10 days is good for a laugh but would not be due, and there is also no need for a WP:CRYSTAL event regardless of who might be starring. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * +1. Is it OK then to remove the template? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, I guess I kinda see the CRYSTAL concerns since it is a future event, but I'm not suggesting a new article here. We already have coverage, and the event is almost certainly going to take place (like you can buy tickets to it at this point). Still, I'm fine if people want to wait until it opens or something, sure.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022
Please change "especailly" to "especially" in the following sentence: "At the end Hecate scolds the three weird sisters for helping Macbeth, especailly without consulting her." Opheodrys aestivus (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The author of Macbeth
There is no proof that Shakespeare is the Author of Macbeth. Please change the author. Glyyph (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)