Talk:Robert Greene (16th century)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.


Very detailed profile of Greene. Great!! the Norwikian

Contents

[edit] organization

Well, somebody chopped up the article into life, works, and Shakespeare, despite the fact that probably no author's life and works are less separable than Greene's. The article was more clear and eloquent on March 31 2006 (take a look at the history), before being Wiki-ized into three tiny and seemingly unrelated chunks. But perhaps I'm full of sour grapes. Oh well.

Might be true if the article had tons of info about Greene's life and works. But it doesn't. Now there's a job for you... :) The Singing Badger 00:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greene alias Shakespeare

I removed the following passage because I couldn't confirm it anywhere and it may be nonsense. If I'm wrong, please replace it but supply a source for the information.

Other scholars have speculated that he was a cousin of Shakespeare, based on the record that on March 6, 1590, one "Thomas Greene, alias Shakespere" was buried in the Stratford-on-Avon churchyard, and relatives of this Thomas Greene had business dealings with Shakespeare.

The Singing Badger 13:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sejamus & conny-catching

I've a vague-type gut feeling that the above should by Sejanus and cony-catching. Does anyone know if I'm right? AndyJones 19:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Kind of. Sejanus is referring to Ben Jonson's play Sejanus. Coney-catching is a common phrase in the period, but it was usually spelt 'cony', 'conny', or 'conney' at the time. I'll change the spellings to modern usage. The Singing Badger 20:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually removed the Sejanus reference since I know of no evidence that he wrote it. The Singing Badger 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirected Page

Somebody redirected this to another page of an author named Robert Greene. I have removed the redirect because this Robert Greene from the Elizabethan Age is not that Robert Greene who was born in 1959. HaarFager 05:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I did the redirect and I think with justification. Hear me out. Do a Google search for Robert Greene. The most common and popular results are for Robert Greene (strategy). He is more than likely the intended target of most searches. He is current, more famous and I assert, more influential. He has a better, more thorough Wikipedia page. Inertia should not keep this page the dominant one. Phillipsmcgee 07:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I changed it to begin with was I had just made some changes to the Elizabethan Robert Greene and when I clicked on the link I had bookmarked, it kept taking me to your Robert Greene. When I clicked on the Robert Greene (Disambiguation) link to choose my Robert Greene, his link also kept taking me back to yours. But, now it's not seeming to do that anymore, so I don't have a problem with what you've done. I'll just make a new bookmark for my Robert Greene and all will be well. Thanks for explaining your position! It was very helpful! HaarFager 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Nice find on that image; I've never seen it before! ThaddeusFrye 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work on adding the caption to the image and rearranging the principal works. Where you placed it is where it should have been all along. HaarFager 05:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greene and Shakespeare

I knew what I had interposed into the section about Greene's supposed reference not being about Shakespeare wouldn't last long. Too many years have gone by since somebody first thought this reference was actually talking about Shakespeare, without any proof other than "they thought so," and now it's taken as fact. No other opinions are welcome. Even though I'm not the only one that thinks so in this case. If anybody ever needed character witnesses, Shakespeare sure has some staunch ones. Misguided, maybe - but loyal. HaarFager 05:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there do seem be be legions of us Stratfordians about lately (Though I hope most of us are open to "other ideas"...). I notice that you added "Marlovians" to the "Oxfordians" reference I included in the article. I think I'll change both of these to "anti-Stratfordians," since it comprehends so many possibilities, and since Wikipedia has such a nice article on the subject. I hope that seems like a sensible idea. ThaddeusFrye 07:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that "anti-Stratfordians" certainly did smooth it up. (Grudgingly, he said.) All I'm worried about is that the casual reader won't even know there are other groups if they're not mentioned by name. I mean, there are the Baconites, (or whatever they call themselves!), some that say Queen Elizabeth herself was the author, and many more. It's just a shame that these can't be mentioned somehow, because - you realize one of those groups might be right. (If you couldn't tell, I'm a Marlovian, by trade!) Maybe one day....! HaarFager 06:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)