Talk:Measure for Measure

Elbow Question
Isn't it Elbow, rather than Pompey, who is a "retread" of Dogberry? Pompey is a bawd, and articulate if garrulous. Elbow is an over-zealous constable like Dogberry and, like Dogberry, is given to malapropisms. Mike Capp 01:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Taking silence as assent... Mike Capp 19:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vagueness
I find the following ridiculously vague and unspecific. If it goes back in, please add some citations, and use more specific language (i.e. what dogma? what relationships? what wit?) The Singing Badger 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The comedy also provides a subtle political critique- a stab at authority. The theme of incest also appears in the play, and some scholars believe that Isabella is unwilling to show her brother mercy for he encourages her submit to Angelo. Her reaction gives some insight into the dogma of the Elizabethan era.  The aforesaid themes all serve to highlight the relationships between the characters of the play, giving further significance to Shakespeare’s intricate scenarios and sharp wit.

Acknowledgements
The summary appears to be extracted with minimal edits from http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/measure/summary.html. Their copyright does not seem to forbid this -- the relevant bit of the copyright information on that site reads "Reproduction, copying or redistribution for commercial purposes of any materials or design elements on the SparkNotes web site is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of SparkNotes, Inc." -- but might it be polite to acknowledge this?

Unless, of course, Sparknotes copies Wikipedia...
 * What part of "strictly prohibited" does not seem to forbid copying? I'd say it DOES forbid it. I'll try to look this over on the weekend. If it really is a copyvio it has to go, whether it's good stuff or not. Wikipedia is a "commercial purpose" in the sense used in this clause, since our own licence permits commercial reproduction. AndyJones 13:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to Angelo article
Why the repeated reversion to link every single mention of Angelo's name to his article? It's obviously inappropriate. If there is some point to doing so, then please explain here. AndyJones 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Kate Keepdown
The article isn't very specific as to why Lucio is forced to marry kate keepdown, some of his impergnating and then abandoning her should be mentioned, shoudln't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.84.7 (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree: my fault because I wrote the synopsis in a bit of a hurry to replace one which was a copyright violation. Actually the whole Overdone/Pompey (etc.) sub-plot gets no mention at all. I'll try to fix this if I get an opportunity. AndyJones 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Stagings
It is necessary to point out contemporary productions of this play, especially American-centric productions? I do not see it adding any value unless there was a far more comprehensive list of productions for historical purposes. Otherwise, it adds no value to the play itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.99.5 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Downgraded quality listing to C Class
Hello, I have reviewed the article as C Class. There are a no of problems with the article: undeveloped lead, poor referencing, incomplete sources, unbalanced sections (synopsis and some info on Performance but lacking much the text, sources, literary analysis). Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Under Developed Lead and Insufficient Sources
As I was reading this article, I noticed that the lead contained very little information and minimal background information. While it is a good beginning and accurate depiction of the themes and publication of the play, more information could be added. For example, a brief summary of the plot before it is described in-depth in the synopsis section. Another issue was the lack of sources backing up the Popular Culture section. There were many examples of Measure for Measure's impact and presence in other artists' works, but no credible sources to support them. If possible, it would be helpful to find sources that verify this information, so it can be assured that it is factual.

ErikaselakowskiErikaselakowski (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some done, some remaining--217.155.32.221 (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Performance History
"The earliest recorded performance of Measure for Measure took place on St. Stephen's night, 26 December 1604." -- 1604 says that night was the first performance of King Lear. Both first performances would have been done by Shakespeare's company. Could they have performed 2 plays on the same day? Philgoetz (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "1604" was confused. King Lear was first performed around Christmas 1606; Measure for Measure is the one whose first recorded performance was on that day in 1604. Good catch! I've fixed the entry on the year page. --Xover (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism
and are persistent in their accusations of vandalism. I would like to correct the article but this is attacked and I am besieged by threats. The Duke pries. The Duke does not try. Lo, "And yet, my nature neuer in the sight To do in slander: And to behold his sway I will, as 'twere a brother of your Order, Visit both Prince, and People: Therefore I pre'thee Supply me with the habit, and instruct me How I may formally in person beare Like a true Frier: Moe reasons for this action At our more leysure, shall I render you; Onely, this one: Lord Angelo is precise, Stands at a guard with Enuie: scarce confesses That his blood flowes: or that his appetite Is more to bread then stone: hence shall we see If power change purpose: what our Seemers be." Untitled50reg (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As the quote above shows, Vincentio, the Duke, disguises himself as the friar Lodowick, in order to see "If power [will] change purpose". He not only tries to see if it will, he succeeds, it does. To try and make the point that he "pries" in order to do this trying and succeeding, is trying (our patience). Edit warring while engaging in such nonsense is disruptive. You've been warned about this before. If you don't stop, your editing privileges will be removed. Paul August &#9742; 19:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is indeed very trying to have to continually assist a bunch of idiots who shower me with their slobber while shouting at me for being covered in their slobber. Do you know why I started the quote where I did? You do not. I will tell you. I began so: "And yet, my nature neuer in the sight To do in slander". Why did I so? Because he is explicitly saying that he is not going to try. He is going to pry. Do you know what he says next? You should, but I suspect that you do not. I want to help you to understand, so I will tell you. He says: "And to behold his sway". What does this mean? It means that he is going to pry.


 * I am incessantly attacked for being disruptive. I am never actually disruptive. I here for example even attempt to facilitate some understanding of my editing. I can give you another example which I think is most fine. I will offer that and then end. For it is a fine one. It demonstrates that my disruption is always very sound and only called disruption through ignorance. Behold. Untitled50reg (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your attitude of disdain for your fellow editors is unwelcome, it does no one any good. Please see WP:NPA Paul August &#9742; 21:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I will tell you about my attitude of disdain. Today somebody changed pry to try, without comment. I reverted this because it introduced an error. Three of my fellow editors threatened me with ban for this disruption of mine. I demonstrated that I was correct to revert the error, in a discussion which I opened to avoid edit war. I was reprimanded for nonsense and a disruptive edit war. One of my fellow editors changed the problem into: "The Duke disguises himself as a friar in order to see if power will corrupt his chosen substitute". But this is worse. For this retains the odour of try. And it is nonsensical too. For such does not require a friar-disguise. Shall I remind you that I was attacked in the ancient Greek pages because I can read ancient Greek? I will. For that is funny. And that is a good example of why I will retain my disdain. Shall I remind you that I frequently quote Shakespeare when I interact with you? Yes. I remind you for two reasons. One: it demonstrates that I am probably more qualified than most editors to edit Shakespeare Wikipedia articles. Two: ""Banish me? Banish your dotage". Untitled50reg (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)