Talk:Robert Greene (dramatist)

Untitled

Very detailed profile of Greene. Great!! the Norwikian

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I restored some part of your skepticism to the lead and I agree that it is important that this article not be a mouthpiece for one dominant but doubtful POV. The article needs additional citations to illustrate the extent of the scholarly controversy, which is very great indeed.--BenJonson (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2010 (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)

Page move

The edit summary explaining the purpose of the move from Robert Greene (16th century) to Robert Greene (dramatist) emerged incomplete due to lack of space. The longer version intended to indicate "...or, possibly Robert Greene (pamphleteer) (a form for which he was equally, if not to a greater degree, renowned in his day)—main title header thus becomes analogous to those of other writers of Greene's era whose names are shared by other individuals, but whose parenthetical qualifiers did not identify them with the century of their activity—Thomas Dekker (poet), John Fletcher (playwright), John Ford (dramatist), etc".—Roman Spinner (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Robert Greene.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Robert Greene.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The image didn't belong on this page anyway. Andrew Dalby 14:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

403 Forbidden

• Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit e-text at Renascence Editions (original spelling). Knitwitted (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Page Move?

The current page title, Robert Greene (dramatist) doesn't describe Greene's work sufficiently; in his day he was much better known for his more than 25 published prose works. The page should be moved to a more comprehensive title, either Robert Greene (writer) or Robert Greene (author). I don't know which of the two terms Wikipedia prefers, 'writer' or 'author'. NinaGreen (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nina. "Writer" I believe is preferred, though a few "author"s can also be found. See this catagory. Dekker is listed as a writer, but I think the reason why Greene is listed as a dramatist is that there's also another Robert Greene who's a writer, Robert Greene (American author) and another who was an English philosopher. "Dramatist" narrows it down sufficiently when searching so readers can directly access the correct Robert Greene. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. NinaGreen (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)