Talk:Mercutio

message: I can't see any evidence in the actual text that the sword-fight is "bejoking", nor that his friends think he's pretending to be wounded. Am I missing something, or is this just a popular interpretation? If it's just interpretation, that should be made clear in the article.
-Justdig 12:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so either. Anyone editing should feel free to change the article to reflect this. --SheeEttin 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His friends do believe that he's wounded, although Benvolio seems uncertain at first, but even after Mercutio states that "tis enough [to kill me]," Romeo still believes that "the hurt cannot be much."  Mercutio's friends believe he's exaggerating the seriousness of the wound, although they recognize its presence. 168.9.120.8 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joking swordfight? 

message: I'm removing the performers section, as it appears to be fake.--Czar Yah 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performers 

message: This section is generally good, except the portion where it says their closest moment is when Mercution dies, and the subsequent speculation about the planet going too close to the sun. Is this really warranted? In the first place, the two could be closer at any moment during the play--depending on the staging of any one production. I find this comment very unhelpful. Calaf 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercury Analogy

message: Someone wrote something regarding Mercutio's relationship to the planet Mercury which was interesting. It said that Mercury is the closest planet that revolves around the sun, and that Romeo is often referred to as the sun. Intruiging as this theoretical metaphor may be, it has no merit because Romeo is NOT referred to as "the sun" - Juliet is. (It is the east, and JULIET is the sun...)
I also added Ben Affleck's performace as a Edward Alleyn in Shakespeare in Love - who in turn played Mercutio. I don't particularly like Affleck, but the film won Best Picture, so I consider it a performance of enough importance to merit inclusion on this page.
Does anyone disagreee with any of this?
BeastKing89 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercury Analogy 

message: There is no professional proof of this.
So I removed it.
--72.76.83.213 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Homosexuality

message: "...is considered the pivotal turning point..." - considered by whom? -_-; That whole sentence really looks like original research to me. Can that really stand without supporting references?
Also "...signals the shift from comedy to tragedy...". While true, someone else has to say it first, in print. --Darkbane 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'm not trying to remove anything (yet ^_^), just trying to raise awareness. "is considered" is bad use of English here, but the other parts need refs. --Darkbane 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. No, really, I am not insinuating that. We just have to live amicably with the OR policies, and the sooner sources appear, the better. :-) --Darkbane 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercutio's death in Act III 

message: It seems to me that the article's single citation is less a matter of well researched objectivity and more of a matter of one user finding research to push a point of view that he had already had (read above quote: "Look, guys, all I can promise you is taht I'm not making this stuff up..."
The issue is that no single point of view will ever be the "correct" point of view as Shakespeare was writing for a mass of people, high and low, gay and straight, man and woman. It imbued his work with a thick layer of ambiguity as he had to please all people all the time. The user who edited the part about Mercutio's homosexuality, I feel, is pushing an agenda as the paper which he cited (which is a paper for a college Literature class, it appears, and, I feel, hardly worthy or notable enough to be included as a legitimate source) does not come to a conclusion, it seems, but does make the case for both heterosexual and homosexual overtones.
With theatre, we are not dealing with a literature class. For some Shakespeare there are overarching philosophies of production by people who have a notable voice (Hamlet, for example: the "melancholy Dane" was a Coleridge idea of the play, while the "objective correlative" that T. S. Eliot proposed shaped Hamlet for the 20th century). As there are thousands of actors who have played these roles there are thousands upon thousands of interpretations. It is not up to us, as an encyclopedia, to interpret the play but to describe it in detail, and to source only the material that has a chance to further illuminate popular or cultural ideas about the piece. The source used, as it is an ASSIGNMENT in a COLLEGE LITERATURE COURSE, does not necessarily illuminate the popular, revolutionary or customary ideas of the theatre community. 
The ASSIGNMENT also uses second hand sources that are quoted with no context for the quote. I feel that if the user really want to push his position he read Greenblatt or another Shakespearean scholar (Harold Bloom, for instance, there is NO limit to them) and source THAT material, instead of seeking out material for his own point of view.
It is good theatre because it is interpretive. But as no one point of view is right, I think we need to push this article further toward a NPOV. For each argument an equal counter-argument should be given, and SOURCES people! For God's sake SOURCES!
:I sympathize with your feelings about the multiple interpretations, and sources.  Of course the article needs to be developed.  However, I think you're misinterpreting the actions of a good editor who was doing the best he could with what he had.  Rather than reading a hidden agenda into this, please just improve the article.  Let's avoid personal attacks, here. Wrad 20:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Citation: Homosexuality, Mercutio's death, etc. 

message: I know wikipedia isn't supposed to be TV Tropes, (Witch is a better fucking sourse of information by the way on all the subjects they tackle) but isn't it common writing device and in movies, ect to have a "mercutio" character? Can't we add that?Sanitycult (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Mercutio" Character 

message: He curses four times, three in the form of "A plague a'both your houses" and then a fourth as a simple "Your houses!" Source: Any transcript of the play ^_^  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.84.246 (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Curses thrice?

message: Hopefully, that shows up. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, haha. Anyways, somebody made an edit that says "He is the boyfriend of Benvolio." There are probably some interpretations that say he is, but in the actual play, it said nothing about the two being in an actual relationship. This even shows up when you Google up Mercutio, and you get the little Wikipedia blurb about him. Mercutio's sexuality is completely up to interpretation, so it's not like we can make a section about it. Should I edit the sentence out, and add Benvolio to "He is a close friend of Romeo and Benvolio..."? PleaseDontTouchMyFries (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably won't see this three years later, but since it might be useful to others observing similar issues. Yes, per WP:BOLD, if you see such issues in any article on Wikipedia—or if you see other improvements than can be made—you should most definitely just change it yourself. For smaller uncontroversial edits (and this change would have been both) there is absolutely no reason to start a discussion about it first. I see someone else has (probably long since) taken care of the problem you point out, but do absolutely feel free to do so yourself (even if the "you" reading this isn't PleaseDontTouchMyFries ;D) if you notice another problem or area for improvement. Wikipedia depends on volunteers and desperately needs more new editors; and that's much more important than whether any given little change is technically "perfect". --Xover (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benvolio and Mercutio's Relationship 

message: Under WP:BOLD I am taking out the section intitled "Theories." It has no sources and uses the phrases "Some have theorized" and "Most believe." This subject has been occasionally debated for twelve years on this page, without sources.AlexanderSoul (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That whole section was blatant original research. Thanks for taking care of it! --Xover (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories section