Jump to content

Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Continued talk: Most quoted writer

Comment after reading the discussion in archive 2: Personally I think 'Most quoted writer' is a hard thing to say. It seems that the source draws from various categories. IMO though Shakespeare being a 'Most quoted writer' is a commonly agreed thing it is impossible to prove that. We don't know if there's a secret anti-Shakespearean group somewhere speaking non-Shakespeare quotes everyday just to destroy this claim. All in all the claim cannot be verified. We might need to specify some categories that we can easily prove, such as 'Most quoted writer in dictionaries', 'Most quoted writer in books', etc., or just simply 'One of the most quoted writers'. Aranherunar 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim is supported by the Oxford English Dictionary which actually surveys literature for quotes, and also accounts for everyday usage of famous phrases Bwithh 14:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

Shouldn't this page be protected? Because well, i mean the Globe Theatre is ..so why not Shakespeare. He's a big guy...and the page should get protection from unregistered users and newly registered users samphex 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Translations into other languages

When Shakespeare is translated into other languages, do they tend to translate him into a pseudo-16th century version of that language, or a modern one? Does anyone have any examples? TharkunColl 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Into modern language, usually, as I understand. I don't have any examples, but presumably you'd find plenty on amazon.fr or amazon.de etc. AndyJones 12:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Most famous Russian translations of Shakespeare are done by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuil_Marshak . He didn't try to make pseudo-16th century translations. They are done in modern Russian language.

Was Shakespeare gay?

I thought he was.

Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of writers believe so. There's no way of knowing for certain. It was Oscar Wilde who popularised the idea. The strongest evidence is in the passionate poems addressed to the young man in the Sonnets, especially sonnet 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs)
The search for "certainty" can obscure something much more meaningful - the significance of suggestive evidence. If Shakespeare was running for office today and the sonnets surfaced, he would be hounded out of town. If the subject could be identified as a particular youth even one day under age, he would be subject to arrest in some jurisdictions. Shakespeare expressed emotions that many perceptive readers over the centuries have identified as same-sex desire and love. They are thought to be a window into his heart. Haiduc 11:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to mention we've got a whole article on the subject: Sexuality of William Shakespeare. AndyJones 12:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How interesting, thanks guys. Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 07:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is rather anachronistic. The idea that men are gay or not comes from the nineteenth century. Before that in general it was considered that anyone would quite like to have sex with anyone except that their moral rules, very strong ones in this religious time, stooped them from doing so . 193.51.150.20 10:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, he had a wife, no? --User:CommKing 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He certainly did. And three children. But does that really prove anything? AndyJones 00:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Andy, but that statement ('But that doesn't prove anything') is absurd: You may aswell say everybody is gay becuase you can't prove they weren't. This modern obsession with suggesting all notable people were gay is very annoying. He may well have been gay but you are only working on the opinion of people like Oscar Wilde (do you see any bias here). My question is are you gay? If you tell me you are married with kids would I be justified in saying 'That doesn't prove anything'. PS. I am not really interested in whether you are gay, I'm just trying to show how annoying the stance of 'that doesn't prove anything' is.--WBluejohn 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm straight FWIW. I don't see how anyone could read my contribution to the above debate as advocating the position that Shakespeare was gay. I've just described the arguments to a user who asked about them. The point you take exception to is me pointing out that having a wife and kids isn't conclusive evidence that he's not gay, and you can surely see I'm right about that. AndyJones 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. Wife + kids is no proof of not being gay, I just dislike the default position of 'you are gay unless you can prove otherwise - and wife and kids is no proof', especially when it relates to people who cannot argue for, or defend themselves in any way. And in this instance it appears that the whole subject was highlighted on the basis of comments of people who had motive to promote homosexuality; namely Oscar Wilde. I have no problem with WS sexuality (whatever it may turn out to be) but when we can even make the suggestion on this evidence we are surely in trouble. While we are in the process of judging people by modern values should we be asking if he was guilty of child abuse (as it is now classed as child abuse to smack children - but I'm sure WS may have done it) - sorry, being facetious. Apart from that, I enjoyed the article.--WBluejohn 18:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree this is a "default position". He's suspected of being gay because he wrote "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate..." and much in a similar vein, to another man. It's bound to provoke speculation, isn't it? AndyJones 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Authorship Question is NOT "under debate" by serious Shakespeare scholars

It is a lower middle class hobby horse which reconciles a fearful respect for Culture with an underlying destructive urge. It is directly comparable to Holocaust denial and Creationism.

Wack jobs with authoritarian personality disorders are pretty much the only subscribers to classist theories of aristocratic authorship.


  • whoever posted the above attack should be ashamed. You violate wiki rules and then have the gall to diagnose the various "wack jobs". Comparisons to Holocaust denial???? Oh, Grow up!Smatprt 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Smatprt, I'd suggest not feeding anonymous trolls. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment above re: "lower middle class hobby horse" is quite remarkable for its hostility. What is it about the standard Stratfordian construct that leads so many of its adherents to cling to it so verbosely and with such violence? To question the Stratford construct of "Shakespeare" is tantamount to threatening the underpinnings of some rigourously defended religious dognma. To a non-specialist reader of Shakespeare, such as myself, such reflex hostility is BIZARRE.

Having read Charlton Ogburn's mammoth work, as well as numerous other works re: the authorship controversy, and, of course, the works of "Shakespeare", I humbly submit that one must be credulous to an extraordinary degree to accept as gospel truth a narrative as contrary to basic sense as the Stratford myth.

Paul Greif, Calgary, AB, CANADA

Later Years

There are claimed descendants of Dr John Hall and his wife daughter of William Shakespear.

And other descendants claimed via his other daughter.

Writeups about this are weak by non experts in genealogy.

Speculation/Identity

Francis Bacon being William Shakespear is supported by computer studies esp of shared word usage esp words from the early dictionary by Thomas Cooper.

No it isn't. Paul B 11:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a really insane argument. Those that ever accuse Shakespeare of being the same person as Francis Bacon are not exactly too intelligent. So what, what a computer writes. A computer is not a human being and can never understand an idea. The program is also only so good as the programmer. This idiocy should be stopped. If you wish to base some argument on the claim that Bacon was really Shakespeare, study history as science and you will see that this is impossible. Bacon was an agent working against the republican element and Shakespeare was a patriot, through and through. Study history and see for yourself. Look also at Shakespeare's teacher, Sir Thomas More. You will learn some interesting things. For more on this thread, leave a note and I will leave some references. --194.97.160.53 20:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (not an anonymous user, but didn't log in. The username is nemesis1981.

For anyone who believes computer attribution, see Donald Foster and "A Funeral Elegy." As for Thomas More being Shakespeare's teacher ... I assume this is meant in a figurative sense. 24.77.19.233 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Muse, Enlightenment, BUrnout

New section ?

Little is understood by academe about enlightenment, taught in the old colleges of Greece, Egypt & Rome, to engender that white heat of extraordinary creativity and abilities that a Shakespear surely had, and less of the potential resulting burnout from that heightened energy.

Muse or direct selection by heaven as Saul / Paul struck blind then enlightened, or manic madness - rude jackanapes chant on.

Illuminating. Please feel free to keep future similar thoughts to yourself. Paul B 11:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Young Paulie, please review the listing at top now before you, of etiquette - Talk page guidelines Respect etiquette Assume good faith No personal attacks Be nice Don't bite the newcomers! 

  ~Bard Still Alive~

Shakespeare's works

There absolutely needs to be a sentence at the beginning of the article stating that it is not proven whether he did write the works actually.

It is proven. Those who believe otherwise are in a minority and have yet to provide conclusive evidence. The burden of proof is on them. And there is a sentence in the introduction saying "many people have speculated about ... the authorship of his works". The Singing Badger 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the first comment. The inquisitive visitor is entitled to an accurate representation of the facts. To begin with, I challenge this uncritical view that Shakspere wrote 38 plays. To begin with, he did not write The Tempest see Shakespeare Authorship. QBrute
It should be noted that the preceeding comment is from an anonymous editor who vandalized a number of pages here.--Alabamaboy 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To guard against being misrepresented, I added to the top of the article that some of the facts were not correct. For example, The Tempest could not have been written by Shakspere (see cited Wiki article). I can fully justify this claim. Am I correct in anticipating a policy of free speech in this forum? QBrute

If you can gain consensus for your changes on this talk page, then more power to you. But you must gain consensus for such controversial changes before making them. --Alabamaboy 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What does "gain consensus" mean? Is this a vote amongst Stratfordians or is it an analysis of an argument? QBrute

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Also consider creating an account here to make it easier to have discussions.--Alabamaboy 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Equally logically, please send me a £20 postal order, or I will take it as a personal attack. AndyJones 21:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a joke here somewhere? I don't get it. barryispuzzled 00:49 2 September 2006

Don't worry, you didn't miss much. AndyJones 09:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a joke here, but it has been told better by a thousand other people, some seriously, like Freud, and some as an easy gag, like Joyce. Unfortunately, most like Freud, who feel threatened and will never be able to understand how a normal man from a provincial town was the biggest genius ever.--192.232.30.80 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor thing -- I noticed a typo in the spelling of "Juliet" in the section that describes his plays being divided into three basic categories. It's spelled "Juilet" by mistake. (Unless this is actually the correct classical spelling; I'm not a scholar by any means, so if that's the case, please disregard.)

Ahem. In the Signet Classic Shakespeare (edited by Sylvan Barnet of Tufts University), in several volumes weight is given to the theory that Fletcher wrote part of several "Shakespearean" plays, including The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. This makes sense to me, as parts of these plays are in Fletcher's distinct style. But Prospero's "Ye elves of hills" speech, and his "These revels now are ended", both in The Tempest) are about as obviously Shakespeare as it is possible to be. The Tempest is, at least mostly, by William Shakespeare of Stratford. William Shakespeare wrote most of the Shakespearean works (he naturally collaborated with others from time to time, most Elizabethan playwrights did) just as Ben Jonson and Milton believed (see Milton's poem about Shakespeare the "Dramaticke Poete"). Hemmings and Condell (who together edited the First Folio), also believed Shakespeare was the playmaking author of his works. Jonson and Hemmings and Condell knew Shakespeare personally and assert in the First Folio that the works they gathered were of Shakespeare's making. (In Jonson's First Folio dedicatory poem, he compares Shakespeare to Aeschylus (a playwright, you dig?). So it is hard to believe the three men were part of a conspiracy to assert the falsehood of Shakespeare's authorship. No, the theory that Shakespeare didn't write most of the Shakespearean works doesn't hold water. The fact that several of the supposed true candidates for authorship didn't live long enough or at the right period or lived too long to account for why more plays weren't written, pretty much shoots down the anti-Stratfordian theory. Grantsky 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A new site about Shakespeare's works has recently launched. It's located at:

http://www.playshakespeare.com

This site should be added because it's a free resource for the plays which differs from other online resources. All other online versions are based on the Globe Edition of his works which is an outdated (by almost 150 years!) and contains many errors. The texts are based on the Riverside Edition (the most authoritative edition blessed by top Shakespeare scholars today) and are more complete than those of the Globe Edition due to later discovery and examination. Therefore, the quality of the content is HIGHER than on other sources freely available online (though there are PAID sources which are comparable in quality).

Additionally, the site provides other facts and figures about the plays (lines, lengths, chronologies, etc.) as well as a forum providing expert analysis by university professors and the dramaturg of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, OR. (the most popular Shakespeare festival in the the US). The site has a performance-related focus and on the interpretation of Shakespeare's plays for performance.

The site is (and always will be) free and fulfills the Wikipedia requirements for external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severdia (talk • contribs)

  • No, it is SPAM. We only accept the best quality external links for major articles on Wikipedia (At least, we aspire to, but don't get me going on that subject). This site is largely a wikipedia mirror. Look here and you find mainly sentences I wrote myself. We do not want this SPAM here. AndyJones 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

++++ The only information from Wikipedia on this site are the play synopses (Full credit and GPL listed on the "About the Texts" page). Once all the plays are up, it WILL be the "best quality" link (not article as you've mentioned) because of the reasons stated above. How can you scream SPAM about a site that's free, requires no registration, and has a higher quality content than other sites?

Since your aspirations are so high, why would you allow a site like opensourceshakespeare.com to be added when you forbid personal projects? (which his is by his own admission on the site).

++++ There's that word again... SPAM. Can you please be more specific on why you think it fits that description? According to the Wikipedia spam link you referred, spam is defined as something that is a solicitation for a business, product or service or is a PR piece for a comercial website. Does it need to have a .ORG TLD in order to be considered non commercial? There are no comercial aspects about the site and the content is all free and provided by university professors in the SF Bay Area.

If, by your own admission, you're not happy about opensourceshakespeare.com then why is it even listed? It would seem obvious that it's a personal project (it even says so on the site) and the rules are the rules, right? I would imagine that if you follow the guidelines to the letter when considering playshakespeare.com, you'd measure other sites with the same yardstick.

  • I'm sorry, I cannot really find anything to engage with in this debate. This kind of discussion might be appropriate in a borderline-type case, but playshakespeare.com is so far away from being an appropriate external link that really there's nothing more to say. If it takes off in a big way, come back again to discuss it in a year. AndyJones 12:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

++++ Can't find anything to engage? Then please answer my previous questions. You keep reiterating your observations about playshakespeare.com without giving any reasons to support or explain them. The single reference you've given is the Wikipedia spam page and the site complies with those guidelines. You also basically admit that another page which is listed is not quite up to the standards and it clearly goes against a Wikipedia guideline by its own admission. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Believe me, opensourceshakespeare.com hasn't "taken off in a big way," so why are you using that as a critieria for re-evaluating playshakespeare.com "in a year"? Does quality information mean a popularity contest all of a sudden?

Severdia 18:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK..so that's the end of the discussion? For an attorney, your arguments are pretty flimsy and incomplete.

Genealogy of Shakespeare's History

Somewhere in Wikipedia, is there a chart of the relationships of all the characters in the histories? Something graphical would really help one to understand who's killing whom.

63.224.201.110 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC) alice

The Norton Shakespeare has a genealogical chart from King John to Queen Elizabeth on the inside of one cover, and a genealogy of the Wars of the Roses on the inside of the other cover.24.77.19.233 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death

As if there's anything else I can ask...what was it? Any clues throughout the ages? Any hard fact? VolatileChemical 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the historical researcher Graham Phillips, on the evening of his death Shakespeare was out celebrating his birthday with fellow playwright Ben Johnson (which, incidentally, confirms his birthdate as the 23rd). He was later, supposedly, murdered by Sir Walter Raleigh. TharkunColl 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
According to tradition he was out boozing with Jonson and Drayton, and caught an infection, but there's no proof of this. His relative inactivity suggests that he may have suffered a lingering illness of some sort, but it's all speculative. I don't know how Raleigh fits into this, or what Sir W's motive would be...unless he was the REAL SHAKESPEARE. Paul B 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A few years ago a German historian claimed to have found Shakespeare's death mask and it had a lump on one eye which looked like an eye cancer. But I believe the death mask was later proven inauthentic. The Singing Badger 00:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

a dark day

The French Shakespeare article is longer and better than ours. Disgrace, friends. --192.232.30.80 12:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is that a bad thing? Shakespeare has crossed virtually every language barrier. It's hardly surprising. If you're fluent in French, then by all means bring from the French version what you think is missing in this English version. --Durin 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Revenge The English Joan of Arc article is better than the French article. ;) Durova 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Silly, but funny. :) - Throw 10:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of William Shakespeare

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. I see Shakespeare on film runs something along those lines and would like to suggest this model for Shakespeare references - perhaps a good approach would be to have separate branching pages for straight adaptations of his works and for cultural refrences to Shakespeare - such as paintings and Shakespeare in Love and the infamous Gilligan's Island episode. I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The infamous Gilligan's Island episode???? Well, there'd certainly be enough to go in it, perhaps too much. Numerous works of art, and many many films. Paul B 16:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"The Producer" originally aired October 3, 1966. "Hollywood producer Harold Hecuba lands on the island for some rest and solitude. The castaways convince him to return to civilization by staging a musical production of Hamlet." They slaughter nearly every major scene with hokey lyrics. Hilarious!
Seriously though, would anyone mind if I culled some material and started a cultural page? Durova 03:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. You may want to give some thought to how best to divide up such material between Shakespeare's reputation and your new cultural page, too. That page (which I've edited extensively) is a little ill-defined and hazy at the edges, and I for one certainly wouldn't have any objection to whatever you think best there. Bishonen | talk 04:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Don't forget all the operas and other classical works: Giuseppe Verdi's Falstaff, Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet (ballet), Arthur Sullivan's incidental music to The Tempest, et al, etc. Adam Cuerden talk 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How many plays?

Regarding this edit summary and this edit summary I just thought I'd mention that Henry VIII is part of the canonical 37. It's The Two Noble Kinsmen that brings the currently-accepted number up to 38. However, PLEASE don't lets start edit warring about the number of plays. There are all sorts of POVs on that: those who say The Tempest or Titus Andronicus or Henry VI Part 1 (etc. etc.) are NOT Shakespeare, and those who insist Edward III and Cardenio and Woodstock (etc. etc.) ARE Shakespeare. 38 remains the best number IMHO, so long as we say "about". AndyJones 07:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are right. My slip. Plus there's the Love's Labour's Won issue and others. Paul B 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Although the Wikipedia guidelines suggest that external links be kept to a minimum, I do think that there are some gaps, and some odd choices in the list at the end of the article. I'd like to suggest some additions, and would request that reviewers consider adding my own site, the Internet Shakespeare Editions (ISE). We offer old spelling versions of all the texts, facsimiles, an extensive section on the life and times, a growing database of Shakespeare in performance, and a detailed section of links. The ISE is non-profit, and freely available. We follow the guidelines of the University of Victoria concerning users with disabilities.

Other sites.

  • Terry Gray's site Mr William Shakespeare and the Internet is generally cited elsewhere, and though it has not been updated for a year, it's still very good.
  • Non-English Shakespeare is well represented by Shakespeare in Europe, (Sh:in:E), a project of the English Department at Basel University, Switzerland.
  • Discussions of those on the SHAKSPER listserv, which has been going strong for over a decade, are worth visiting too.

Mbest1 01:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)mbest1

Edward deVere as the true author of the works known as Shake-speare.

In the article it states incorrectly that 'The principal hurdle for the Oxfordian theory is the evidence that many of the Shakespeare plays were written after their candidate's death, but well within the lifespan of William Shakespeare.' This is absolutely wrong and misleading. There is now no evidence whatsoever that any of the works were written after the death of Edward deVere in 1604. The only play in question, back in 1920, was 'The Tempest' which was incorrectly assumed to have been written after deVere's death. But that issue has since been resolved.

That is an absurd claim.24.77.19.233 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

Early Life

Anyone have a cite for this? It's pretty weak. Adam Cuerden talk 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) William Shakespeare was once a woman named Wilma Shakespeare. A few years ago seen on television the girls on St. Trinians 2 spilled the secorite. How did they know? you might think well William (Wilma) Shakespeare had a step brother who was a fritton pirate.

Suggestion for "Later Years"

(though not same day for England was still functioning under the Julian calendar)

Perhaps more like this?: (though not same day, since England...)

or

(though not same day for England, as they were still...)

Both ways sound better/clearer to this little anonymouse, but I wanted to see if anyone objected. :D 206.176.81.73 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bible

The King James Version Of The Bible Was Written In The Year 1611. In That Year William Shakespear Was 46 (to be 47 later in the year). In Psalm 46 If You Count Down 46 Words The Word Shake Appears If You Count Up 46 Words (right to left) From The Bottom The Word The Word Spear Appears. This Has To Do With Shakespear Writting The Bible!! 89.101.99.136 14:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Ice2ms

Except that the book was published in 1611, not written. 24.77.19.233 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, regardless, the oddity exists in versions of the bible predating Shakespeare. Just a curious footnote, and doesn't have a place on this article. --Durin 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this was first noticed in the 19th C and was used as evidence that S was involved in translation. Kipling wrote a short story based on it called Proofs of Holy Writ. It's generally regarded as sheer coincidence. Paul B 19:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Early life facts and citations: free schooling

Does anyone know why the (very often stated in the literature) assertion that Shakespeare probably had free schooling has been singled out for citation attack, when numerous other equally tendentious assertions in the article haven't? We could cite traditional scholarly sources such as "The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes, Volume V. The Drama to 1642, Part One. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; Cambridge, England: University Press, 1907–21." [1] which show it to be hearsay or probable, but so is so much else on WS. This of course centres on the debate of His Existence or Was It All by A Renaissance Gentleman Such as Bacon. But pointless cite demands don't get us far. I propose to remove it, plus some other similarly pointless demands in the current article. MarkThomas 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone wanting to change this point again actually make a point here in the discussion rather than just going in and auto-reverting? I have made a good point above. If this small point of tradition needs special citation (and citation mania is usually a sign of POV'ist activity), why then for example does this much more important and equally tendentious point not need citation out of interest? "Shakespeare is believed to have produced most of his work between 1586 and 1612, although the exact dates and chronology of the plays attributed to him are often uncertain"? MarkThomas 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's quite simple: Half that sentence has a citation. But the citation does not cover the first half of that. Without a [citation needed] tag, it would appear the citation for the first half is covered by the later cite, so, when adding in some cites to that paragraph, I was very clear what was and wasn't cited. Of course much else in the article needs citation, but to mark everything that needs citation would make it unreadable in the interim. Adam Cuerden talk 13:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

On the general point though, the central problem is that in the case of Shakespeare nearly all "scholarship" about his early life and much of his later life as well is based on "traditions", "beliefs", "historical research about people and places he might have had something to do with" etc, etc, etc. Therefore all the cites in the world will only refer to these guesswork sources. How valuable is that to the casual WP reader? The traditions about Shakespeare are very well entrenched and widely regarded. Would it not be better to simply make a general statement about this core problem in Shakespeare studies and then say in effect "all the following may or may not be true and has been believed for centuries..."? MarkThomas 13:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not considering we're making an effort to try and get this to FA-class, which requires full citation. Adam Cuerden talk 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we don't cite as per my para above. I'm suggesting we don't randomly spray cite tags all over the place onto key points to support a hidden POV-ist agenda of "Shakespeare was not the real writer of those plays", on which the subject of his schooling alleged or otherwise is a key point. I'm suggesting that we show a little bit to the casual user of how Shakespeare scholarship evolved (cited of course), how it tends to support certain traditions on which there is no provable basis of "fact" (cite) and how this contains the following non-provable assertions - a, b, c, etc. (not separately cited in each case). Otherwise what we end up with is the usual scrappy little WP faction fights over each cite tag which ends up shedding little light to the end user and not advancing things. How does that scenario contribute positively to FA status other than via some bureacratic box-ticking exercize? MarkThomas 13:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • With respect, verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, not a "beaurocratic box-ticking exercise". I won't even try to answer most of your points in this thread because they seem to me to be based on a fundamental mistunderstanding of WP:V, or a fundamental disregard for its importance to the project. I can only suggest you spend more time reading it, and its related articles like WP:RS. AndyJones 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Andy, but you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, and with respect to you, can I propose you actually read my paragraph and not make unjustified statements about my lack of understanding of WP guidelines. I am not arguing against verifiability, just making a suggestion about how the verifiability of the whole early life of Shakespeare, all of which is basically unverifiable by any provable source, be presented to our readers. Or are you suggesting that we should remove all of the early life material as it is not verifiable by reference to a website. (the usual WP citation!) MarkThomas 16:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I put in the cite tag because I was trying to cite it up, found I could only cite half th e sentence, and wanted to make it clear what was cited. You removed it, making it look like the whole sentence was cited, so I put the tag back. If the tag is removed, it will be presumed that the first half of the sentence is cited, and so the information will never be fully covered by the cite.
Where the hell do those Oxfordian kooks come into that? Adam Cuerden talk 17:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Where the Hell"; "Oxfordian kooks"; - it seems that Adam Cuerden has already resorted to foul language and name calling. Sorry, Adam, but your POV is obvious and your name-calling (bullying) has no place on Wiki. Please grow up!Smatprt 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

...I was being accused of being an Oxfordian because I put in a cite needed tag. Given I'm allowed to express my opinion on the talk page, and, in addition, was stating my denial more forcefully because it's a position I can see no support for, I see nothing wrong with what I said. However, if you have good reasons to believe in the Oxfordian view, I apologise. Adam Cuerden talk 23:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I just think it's wrong (and not Wiki policy) to call anyone a "kook" (not polite and definitely a personal attack)- talk page or article itself.

To quote Wiki (on THIS page):Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers! Yes, I do have good reasons to believe in aspects of the Oxfordian view, but I have been harrassed, attacked and ridiculed by stratfordian editors ever since my first edit on the subject. If you read the Shakespeare Authorship talk page, you will see how much bullying has gone on - to the effect of chasing off contributors. This harrassment (and a number of complete deletions) has only hardened my resolve not to be bullied or chased off, but to contribute as best I can for as long as I can. Smatprt 15:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI - This is right out of WikiPolicy on NPOV: "For instance, that Shakespeare is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there are strong cases being made that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was one of his contemporaries, such as the Earl of Oxford or Christopher Marlowe. Notice that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research — but once determined, a clear statement of that reception (unlike an idiosyncratic opinion by a Wikipedia article writer) is an opinion that really matters." Smatprt 16:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the section on Undue Weight of WP:NPOV. I really don't think Oxfordians and Marlovians are very widespread. Adam Cuerden talk 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Now here is where you might do a little research on your own. While I would agree with your statement regarding Marlovians (and Baconians for that matter), you are off the mark when it comes to the popularity of the Oxfordian case. There are now a number of University's that currently teach Oxford-related authorship courses and/or seminars, there are several national and international Oxford-related acedemic conferences that attracts hundreds of scholars and researchers, and, more importantly, in the last decades alone there have been numerous Oxfordian-related research books published, along with countless websites. And finally, in the more public eye, there have been more Oxford-related articles in the world's major newspapers and periodicals than all the other alternate candidates combined. Therefore, while I might agree that Undue Weight would apply to the lessor candidates, when it comes to Oxford, to quote Wiki "in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there are strong cases being made that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was one of his contemporaries". A number of nuetral Wiki editors have already made this a policy - specifying the authorship issue as one worth learning about.

(And I still disagree with calling anyone a "kook"!)Smatprt 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my language - I was just somewhat upset at bein g assigned viewpoints that I disagree with, due to certain worries that some (not all, and not necessarily part of the motive for any individual) of the reason to doubt Shakespeare's authorship is due to snobbery, e.g. not wanting a great author to be of the lower/middle classes. Hence, and since I wasn't aware of more than a handful of people objecting, and hadn't seen mention of them in anything in several decades, I was probably a bit more forceful in my denial than I ought to have been. Adam Cuerden talk 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
is there any evidence to back up your assertation that there are numerous reputable scholars that believe Oxford is the author? I think undue weight does apply to Oxford. I have no figures myself but a quick scanning of the last few issues of Shakespeare Quarterly reveals that everyone just takes orthodox authorship for granted and pays no attention to Oxford. It is still just a handful of people objecting. Jvbishop 18:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • well, for starters try Professor Daniel Wright, Director of The Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre at Concordia University. Start at this website: [2], then read up on the annual conference and check out the various scholars who are presenting new research. This is only one of dozens of annual conferences held world wide, including at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, each featuring more than a "handful" of scholars and researchers. One might also consider the number of Oxfordian research books that have been published in the last decade alone as a sign of continued scholarly research. Also interesting to note that the various Shakespeare Authorhsip websites report hundreds of thousands of hits in the past few years alone. I'd say the issue is actually thriving. Smatprt 18:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok so you have a Professor at a small private college. An annual conference that looks like it is always held at this same private college. A conference program that is full of MD's presenting papers on subjects that have nothing to do with medicine such as :

8:00 - 9:00 "Exit Shakspere, Enter Oxford: Evidence That the Shakespeare Plays Were Not Written for the Public Stage"; Dr Eric Altschuler, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Director of the Brain and Perception Laboratory of the Institute for Neural Computation at the University of California at San Diego; and William Jansen, independent scholar; Forest Grove, Oregon

I hope the other conferences are better than that one. If so you will be almost as thriving as the creationists. Hey and they also publish tons of books and get lots of website hits too!! Jvbishop 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    • You might check out Dr. Roger Stritmatter and his research associates.

BTW -I answered your question in good faith. You respond with insults and snobbishness. Whenever you Stratfordians start making comparisons to creationism or holocost denials, it's time to stop the conversation. TaTa. Smatprt 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not Shakespeare's house

Mary Arden's House today

When I visited it, the guide said Shakespeare's house had been demolished and that this was the one next door. Mary Arden's cottage is a better bet because Shakespeare certainly lived there in his childhood. qp10qp 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The picture is a back view of the Henley St house known as "Shakespeare's birthplace". It was owned by the Shakespeare family, but there's no proof that he was actually born there. You are referring to New Place, the house he was living in when he died. That was demolished in the 18th century. Paul B 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I've been there too; not seen it from that view (just looked round inside) and thought it was the other one. Although that one's indeed called "Shakespeare's house", he didn't own it, which is why I was misled by the photo. Apologies. qp10qp 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

etext of Vortigern and Rowena?

Does anyone know if an etext of "Vortigern and Rowena" exists? S davis 07:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange line

There's this line "everything above is a big lie! william was no queer" at the end of 'Sexuality' that strikes me as very odd. Could someone please fix that or explain why it's there?

Detail on Holinshed's Chronicles

Properly, it should read , "the 1587 edition of Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles" since the original edition was from a decade earlier, and Holinshed was well dead by 1587.24.77.19.233 01:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

i donot understand much about shakespere but i belive you are right!!!

Not to harp on this, but "Raphael Holinshed's 1587 edition of The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland" is still not correct, since it wasn't edited by Holinshed. The correct reading should be, as I wrote above, "the 1587 edition of Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles..." Also, "(which provided material for Macbeth and King Lear)" should be "(which also provided material for Macbeth and King Lear)"24.77.19.233 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanders Portrait

I can't find any information on wikipedia about the Sanders portrait of Shakespeare. Here's some links about the portrait: http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/whats-new/portrait_e.shtml & http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/multimedia/imagegallery/m_i_13.cfm Do you know if this is accurate? (Patadragon 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

The information in the first link is fairly accurate, though it omits the handwriting evidence. The second one is full of misconceptions and inaccuracies. Paul B 10:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are at WP:GAR. Were you told?

I assume that you good folks here do know that your Good Article grade is being discussed over at GAR? Perhaps an editor would like to pop over there before it gets delisted? I haven't seen any note of the review here.

I would also comment that I have mentioned this articles referral in a rant over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) in the piece entitled WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of Wikipedia:The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit. You may wish to get over there and disassociate yourself with my ravings... LessHeard vanU 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's teh direct link: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#William_Shakespeare. I've posted there already. In short, this article is very stable aside from anonymous vandalism and is a very good article which, with a little work, could become a featured article.--Alabamaboy 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh, if the review had been archived earlier it would of been no consensus anyway, there wasn't much danger of this article being delisted I think. Homestarmy 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Second peer review

In the interest of being a good article collaboration, I think this article should undergo another peer review. The last one was over a year ago. -- Wikipedical 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edits vandalized

Can someone who can edit the article edit it??!! It's been stuck on a vandalized version since the 31st. Ridiculous state of affairs!
Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've checked and I can't see any vandalism. Where is the problem? - Eron Talk 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right. User "Mascott" had changed a few dates by adding a century or so, but he/she/it changed them back again on the last edit. Sorry! .... Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No worries. Old vandalism sometimes gets missed so I wanted to be sure there wasn't something I wasn't seeing. - Eron Talk 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_3&oldid=1137324358"