Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

External link to Worldcat?

Worldcat is the largest online library catalog in th world, covering the contents more than 57,000 libraries. Their data indicates that there are more works by pr about "William Shakespeare" than any other person. Jesus Christ comes in at number 2.

I have two questions:

• should we add a link to the worldcat page for William Shakespeare?

Here is a possible link to add to the "external links" section:

{{worldcat id|id=lccn-n78-95332|name=William Shakespeare}}

which yields

Works by or about William Shakespeare in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

In general, I feel that a worldcat link is a good idea for any article that has a worldcat page, but I'm slightly worried about Shakespeare. Sure, this would help a reader to find library material, but it's a bit like inviting the reader to drink from a fire hose. -Arch dude 23:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.180.98 (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sander's portrait

Given that the Sanders portrait of Shakespeare is the current best candidate for the most authentic painting.. shouldn't we have it in the article? [1] [2] [3]. -- 71.191.47.120 14:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above on this very page.Smatprt 14:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See thread above. Newspapers are not a reliable source for this sort of thing, and we must wait for any research to be published. Your second link is to Nolen's book on Amazon. But Nolen remains neutral; of the seven experts she consults, five do not believe the work is of Shakespeare and one is neutral. You will understand that old ink and paper/linen can be obtained, but that the wording and handwriting have been declared anachronistic. The precise dating of Shakespeare's birthday is particularly suspicious.qp10qp 14:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed twice before [4] and above. It is unlikely to be Shakespeare. In the late 18th century it was common for any vaguely plausible portrait of the period to be identified as Shakespeare or some other historical worthy. The journalists' reports contain a misconception - that the ink has been "dated". Ink can't be dated in that way, all that is demonstrated is that the ink is of a formula that was used in the period. It was also used in later periods. Paul B 15:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. the "debate" itself is notable enough for discussion on Wikipedia, including a copy of the picture in question (which can't be copyrighted, see PD-art). -- 71.191.47.120 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a case is building up for the painting to have its own article, certainly.qp10qp 15:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul, you would know more about this than me, but how common would it have been for Jacobean paintings to be labelled in this way? My instinct is that it would not be common at all, because I find it so difficult to come by information about portraits of this period. The best information about a sitter is sometimes painted on the front, but dates of birth and death are never given, though posthumous portraiture was not unknown. I note that a strip of this painting has been cut from the right, perhaps to remove the real name of the sitter, or something? I paint myself and have carried out portrait commissions; it has never occurred to me to add the date of birth of the sitter to the back. It is conceivable that a dealer might so label a painting after the sitter's death; but the family that owns this painting base their claim on relationship to the painter and on its having remained in the family since the artist painted it. So, if they are right (unlikely), no dealer ever laid hands on it.qp10qp 15:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's actually fairly common for family members to add information of that sort, either on the back of the canvas or on a label. Artists wouldn't. It's incredibly difficult to date these texts much of the time. Dealers do also add them, most commonly in the 18th c +, and by the 19th C you also get exhibition labels. So it wouldn't be odd if a family member added the name. However, I've seen many examples of such labels added by the family decades or even centuries after the picture was painted, based on family tradition or myth. I agree with you that adding the exact date of birth is very odd. Years of birth and death are quite common, but days and months are unusual in early inscriptions, to say the least. Paul B 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamnet's death

RR, I noticed you reverted back to "unknown causes." It's not really that big a deal to me, but we don't know if he died of unknown causes, we only know that we don't know, so I think that "unrecorded causes" would be more accurate.Tom Reedy 12:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Chandos Portrait

Why has someone put "unconfirmed" on the picture of Shakespeare? Most scholars accept this is authentic. (Felsommerfeld 21:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

• That's not my understanding. I believed that all images except the folio engraving and the funerary monument were conjectural. Paul B is our expert on these things, and hopefully he'll be along soon to clear this up. Or I suppose one of us will have to go to the library... AndyJones 09:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not confirmed as Shakespeare. It may be an authentic painting of the period. The reason why it is given more prominence than other unconfirmed paintings of Shakespeare is that its provenance can be traced back to William Davenant, born in 1606, who was supposedly Shakespeare's godson or even illegitimate son, according to recorded rumours. Even if we believe, as I tend to, that Davenant was a charlatan, the provenance to his ownership is worthy of a certain respect. Davenant was the son of a couple who ran a tavern in Oxford at which, according to Aubrey (not always reliable, but he knew the Davenants), Shakespeare stayed on his journeys to and from Stratford.qp10qp 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And didn't Davenent say he got it from the actor Joseph Taylor? And then from Davenant it went to Betterton. There is also a blackened terra cotta bust that was found in 1845 during the demolition of a warehouse that was the Duke's Theatre, which was Davenant's theatre after the Restoration. Two busts, one of Shakespeare and one that was smashed that was conjectured to be of Jonson, along with the masks of comedy and tragedy, apparently graced the entrance to the theatre and were bricked over when it was converted. It appears to have been made from a death mask, but it was made during the reign of Charles I.Tom Reedy 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why not move the Folio portrait to the place of honor instead of the Chandos? The Chandos may be more impressive, but it also sets my teeth on edge! Thank you, Shir-El too 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that this was done because the Folio portrait goes so perfectly with the section on the Folio. My teeth, too, are set on edge by the many traditions and rumours that we are obliged to mention in this article; but this picture annoys me no more than the rest. It is a fact of Shakespeare scholarship, whether we like it or not, that what "might" be of, by, or about Shakespeare has to be held up to the light, particularly if the provenance of the possibility goes back a long way.qp10qp 11:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chandos is generally believed to be an authentic likeness, yes, but 'unconfirmed' is reasonable. There's no doubt it's a genuine work of the period. The evidence of its provenance dates back to notes made by George Vertue who says it comes from Davenant, and that he got it from John Taylor, the artist. Later reserarch has demonstrated that an artist called John Taylor certainly existed at the time and is probably the same John Taylor who is also recorded as a sometime actor. So the evidence certainly seems to fit, but we can never be sure. Paul B 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A thought: has any kind of forensic comparison been done on the various portraits? If missing persons' and King Tut's faces can be reconstructed, surely the same skills can be used to compare the versions? Assuming the Folio portrait may be used as a base-line? Thank you, Shir-El too 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that art works are not photographs or skulls. Their accuracy varies according to the style and skills of the painters and engravers. One computer study was done by Lillian Schwartz, who concluded that the Droeshout was copied from a portrait of Elizabeth I! It just goes to show how easy it is to establish arbitrary links. Paul B 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bellott v. Mountjoy

Wikipedia has a page on the Bellott-Mountjoy case, which this page does not acknowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.8 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird

I went to the article page and ended up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_shakespeare. Apparently somebody had redirected the real page there. After some confusion, I found the real page and blanked that one. Is there any way that page could be deleted from Wikipedia? Visit the history and you'll see why.Tom Reedy 19:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Try it again. If you go to that page it should redirect here. Wrad 19:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for deletion. I've semi-protected it to break the cycle of anonymous vandalism. - Nunh-huh 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

References formatting

I've converted all the old-style note references into <ref>s. What we need now is to separate the documents into a "References" section, and the notes (and small page number pointers) into a "Notes" section. Chris Cunningham 11:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We've always known that was an issue (though there is no Wikipedia policy that insists on it). Our thinking was that the list of references for this article would have to be so long.qp10qp 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to try it anyway? We've done it for the Hamlet article. Wrad 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If Chris wants to do it, let him have a go, I say. It's a dreary task (and the fishing out of the references followed by consistent abbreviated short noting needs to be meticulous) that I wouldn't want to spend time on myself.qp10qp 15:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If there's one thing that gets you karma it's dreary tasks :) I'll have a go at it gradually. Chris Cunningham 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the merging of the notes into the references section. Those are two distinct items and merging them together makes it more difficult to understand the note comments. A more important issue, though, is that the notes/references split emerged from consensus among previous editors. Before making this change, please get a consensus to do so.--Alabamaboy 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

They aren't distinct in the current article. They're mostly useless comments scribbled into the margins, and if I thought it were any more than simple copyediting I'd have trimmed them. The only way forward with splitting the notes/refs properly is to first have them all formatted consistently. But rather than work on the article, I'll sit and twiddle my thumbs while others weigh in if that's what's needed. Chris Cunningham 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I propose: A notes section which remains separate and the same as it is currently, then a References section with just authors and page numbers, and lastly a Bibliography or Work cited section which lists full Bibliographical information. Wrad 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Alabamaboy 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are proposing the same set-up as the Hamlet article, I'm all for it. Whoever thought it up was a genius.Tom Reedy 03:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I had planned, yeah. Chris Cunningham 12:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was. I think there was just a little misunderstanding. It is a great idea that we've thought about doing for awhile. Wrad 19:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Tempest help request

I have begun editing The Tempest article, which appears to have become another authorship battleground. While inserting a link in a quote by Kenneth Muir in the sources section, I'm having trouble losing a large white space at the end of the link. Can anybody help? While I'm at it, is there an article I can read to help me with editing Wikipedia? Oh, and if anybody wants to help at The Tempest, feel free. It needs a lot of work, especially freeing it from POV biases.Tom Reedy 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, authorship debates usually spring up in the Dating or Sources sections of articles. I don't see any white space, though. Did you fix it? I can help a bit with my research from Ariel (Shakespeare) and Sycorax (Shakespeare). Wrad 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. I had placed the link so that it split against the picture, so somehow the link box didn't show up but left a white space, which you can see from my previous edits. I deleted some material from the front, which moved the link so it is now continuous within the text, and so the white space disappeared. I'm going to take my time fgoing over the article, so it'll be months before I'm done, so feel free to jump in. The dating of this play is important for some authorship theories, but their Web sites are not acceptable article references, IMO.Tom Reedy 16:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Undisturbed bones?

You write that " stone slab covering his grave is inscribed with a curse against moving his bones. As far as is known, the curse has been effective and his remains lie undisturbed." I have been in the Church at Stratoford, asked the question, and was informed that the stone had indeed been raised and that, unfortunately, nothing indicative lay there.' Ian McSeveny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.183.4 (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence. It wasn't cited and seemed weird to me anyway to say that "the curse has been effective". Even if his bones weren't touched, surely it's not because of a curse. Wrad 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, this article recently surpassed 10,000 edits! Wrad 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrad, why do you take an uninformed opinion as evidence enough to change the article? Do you dislike the sentence? How exactly does "nothing indicative lay there" translate into the bones being moved? I don't know who talked to Mr. McSeveny, but if they told him the bones have been moved or disturbed, they told him wrong. The stone over the grave has been replaced, but it was placed over the old one becuase it had sunk down into the floor. There is a story that at one time another grave beside his was opened up and part of the earth of Shakespeare's grave fell in, and a worker looked in but could see nothing, but that hardly amounts to the bones being moved. As far as the sentence goes, it was just a filler to keep the following section title from moving to the center when we were having trouble with the monument picture taking up too much space, so I don't really care if it's there or not. It is a bit upsetting to know that any person can post an unsupported opinion and get the article changed, though. Tom Reedy 03:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take it out so much because of what he said as because of what it said. I have always thought that sentence had a silly tone. Whether or not there were bones seemed of little consequence. Considering all the anonymous statements I haven't responded to, I'd hardly say that I'm the type who jumps to change something at the slightest whim. Wrad 03:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom - anyone CAN change an article - welcome to Wikipedia! (You might check the 5 Pillars, a brief excert says "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. Articles can be changed by anyone, and no individual owns any specific article. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it." You are beginning to sound like you WP:OWN this article. I don't see why you don't admit that Wrad is right - it was a stupid sentence . The curse was effective? What is this, a sci-fi article? Jeez.Smatprt 05:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining about the deletion, Stephen, just the idea that an unsubstantiated remark was the genesis of it. It was a silly sentence I put in just for filler cos I couldn't think of any other way to straighten out the formatting. But it was my sentence! I wrote it! And how can you say the curse hasn't been effective? And aren't you the one who believes it really is a science fiction article, or at least a fantasy? And yes, I do own this article, and you'll have to ask my permission before you touch it. Any day now I'm going to put "by Tom Reedy" right after the title and then lock it down! So there! Arrgrr rrfffthgplx wrryyll pfffttshrwll! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MONTRESSOR! Tom Reedy 06:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Aliens! Aliens told me that it had been disturbed! Last night! In a dream! There, I said it. Now you all know... Wrad 07:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

who bore him three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. ?!?!?!

who bore him three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith.

I think the word previous to him, "bore", makes no sense...

--eth01 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone changed this on the page in the last couple of days, too. Bore is the past tense of "to bear", so to say that a wife "bore" her husband three children is correct. I thought this usage was the same in North America, also. Am I right? AndyJones 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you are correct. We use it that way here too. --Etacar11 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am responsible for that version. I was under the impression that it was unobjectionable. I thought it more interesting than with whom he had three children, and suchlike. RedRabbit 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"With whom he had" sounds more egalitarian, in my humble opinion, but I didn't do anything to it.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Classification of plays

I'm bringing this up here as it is the most frequented of all the shakespeare pages. I glanced through the archives without seeing anything on this, but please correct me if I'm wrong and am bringing up and old debate. In my high school lit class, we learned (though i do not remember from which textbook, unfortunately) that shakespeare's plays were classified into more specific genres than simply tragedy, comedy, and history, in most cases. Perhaps the template and affiliated pages should reflect that? Random89 (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't agree. We have discussed this quite a lot on the various Shakespeare talk pages. There are numerous classifications: which plays are tragicomedies? Which are problem plays? Which are romances? Is an early comedy in a diffrent category from a mature comedy? Scholars have used all these terms and many others, not always consistently, and we long-ago reached a consensus that the organisational menthod we should use is that derived from the First Folio (tragedy/comedy/history), and to deal with anything more specific in the notes (you'll see, for example, that we've got †s and ‡s and *s appended in this article). AndyJones (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Andy is spot on. Lest we forget, keeping the folio classifications keeps the plays true to the original editors intentions.Smatprt (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep. Original classifications are the only thing no one can dispute, and are the basis for all later forms of classification. Wrad (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The original classifications would mean that Cymbeline should be listed with the tragedies. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

born and died

i thought he was born and died on the same day. i remember my grade 9 english teacher telling me this in high school; she was the head of the english department; how could she be wrong???--24.109.218.172 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In oh so many ways. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an assumption, not a fact. That she is the head of the English department does not change that. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Although, let's be fair. We don't all hold grudges against our ninth grade English teachers, and the belief that Shakespeare was born and died on the same date is fairly widespread. AndyJones (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly unfair to require that high school teachers not teach urban myths as if they were facts. - Nunh-huh 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The first thing you learn in college history classes is to forget everything you learned in high school (sad but true), and the same is the case here. No one really knows the exact day he was born, just generally. Legend says he died on his birthday, but we don't really know for sure, or have much reason to see that legend as fact. Wrad (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There was an extensive note about this on List of people who died on their birthday, advising editors not to add Shakespeare's name to the list for the reasons stated above, but that article has unfortunately been consigned to the waste paper basket of Wikipedia. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In all the Shakespeare literature and scholarship I've read, the man's date of death is considered known. We know the date of his baptism, and, since early modern kids were baptized usually two to three days after birth, a short range of dates was extrapolated for the birthday of John Shakespeare's eldest son. Folks later in history - post-Restoration, I think - made the "mistake" noted in the article because it provided a neat closure in the life of a great English literary figure. The basis of the speculation-for-tidiness isn't noted in the article, is it? --Jgurd (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Today is the 392nd anniversary of Shakespeare's death (and 444th anniversary of his birth?) Does anyone know HOW Shakespeare died? Illness, natural causes...? He died on or around his 52nd birthday (1564-1616), a very young age by today's standards. Numerous other famous prodigies have also died at early ages (Mozart at 35, Tchiakovsky at 53, Beethoven at 56), whereas others have lived very long lives (Plato died at age 80, ca. 428 BC - 348 BC). What was considered the life expectancy in the early 17th century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agr0223 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No one knows how he died. There are no records, though there's no reason to doubt that it was of natural causes. 52 was certainly not considered to be very young at the time (I doubt it would be even now). It was quite old. Paul B (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Should these phrases be here?

I draw your attention to these:

• ”now widely regarded” – but not before?
• ”translated into every major living language” - which languages are not major, and is this important?
• ”he began a successful career” – surely “he began what was to be”?
• ”He appears to have retired”? I never knew he was a magician.
• ”genres he raised to the peak of sophistication and artistry” - what is the peak?
• ”Next he wrote mainly tragedies until about 1608” – “he then mainly wrote”.
• ”considered some of the finest in the English language” – “considered by critics to be”?
• ” In his last phase,” – what does this mean? Did he live his life in phases?
• “his reputation did not rise to its present heights until the nineteenth century” - what heights?
• ” the Victorians hero-worshipped Shakespeare” - this is silly.
• ” his work was repeatedly adopted” – adopted or adapted?
• ”consistently performed” – every single hour of the day?

That is just in the Lead. --andreasegde (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• now, because he wasn't always
  • Comment: The Victorians did, did they not?--andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Apparently so. But pointing out his reputation is now X neither says nor implies that his reputation was (or was not) X at specific points in the past. The sentence is clearer as it is. AndyJones (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • There were times in history where his work was considered too vulgar to be performed, and even th Victorians performed Bowdlerized versions. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• major language because, yes, there are minor ones. It's not a judgement on the 'quality' of the language, but the extent of its use.
  • Comment: Is it important to know that his work wasn't translated into minor languages?--andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Doesn't matter whether it's important or not. If changed to "translated into every language..." it would be factually wrong, which is the last thing we want to be. AndyJones (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The use of 'major languages' here bothers me; there is no specified criterion for what constitutes one. Use some thing like 'his works have been translated into '15' or '8' different languages'. Foolman89 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe, if we knew how many languages his works had been translated into: but that would be unknowable. They've even done Hamlet in Klingon. AndyJones (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• "what was to be" is clumsy. His career was successful - pretty much from the word go.
  • Comment: "pretty much from the word go" makes me laugh. Sorry.--andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Apology accepted. I don't see your problem with the sentence, though. It's gramatically and logically correct as it is, and as Paul rightly points out, the proposed revision is clumsier. AndyJones (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• appears because we don't know for certain.
  • Comment: Then can't you say, "As far as we know"? --andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Or we could say appears, which coveys the same thought using four fewer words, and sounds better.
• the peak is the top, height, apex, acme (see Roget)
  • Comment: Is it the top of a mountain? What would be the peak of literary style? --andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is this difficult to understand? Peak used in this metaphoric sense (the height of something, as distinct from the physical summit of a mountain) is normal everyday English: you hear it in sports reports and suchlike all the time. AndyJones (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• 'he then wrote' may be better
• adding 'by critics' is pointlessly prolix
  • Comment: Then by whom? --andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well by critics, obviously. But that's the point: it is obvious. You worked it out, and the reader will. The subject of the sentence isn't that important: the point of the sentence is its objects, and the fact that they are considered the greatest. Phrasing it the way it is emphasises that.
• His career can be divided in phases
  • Comment: Is your life divided into phases? I think this is silly. --andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It's clear what this means and I don't find it silly. AndyJones (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• the heights are explained earlier
• no it isn't silly. It's explained by the term bardolatry, which is linked.
• no, the word is adopted, as the sentence makes clear.
  • Comment: His works have been constantly adapted (as in revised versions).--andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes they have, but the sentence isn't about that. It's about them being adopted. AndyJones (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• consistently does not mean constantly.

Paul B (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fancruft. --andreasegde (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary; look again:

You call "hero-worshipped" silly. But lo, we have a quote from Thomas Carlyle to prove it: "That King Shakespeare, does not he shine, in crowned sovereignty, over us all, as the noblest, gentlest, yet strongest of rallying signs; indestructible." This is taken from his On Heroes, Hero Worship & the Heroic in History (1840). And he wasn't the only one.

Or take "adopted": now this refers to the way various different movements took Shakespeare up and developed him in their own image. The mot juste, no? qp10qp (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"genres he raised to the peak of sophistication and artistry" - what is the peak? The peak is the highest point. Shakespeare wrote his greatest comedies and histories at this time; nothing like them had been done before; perhaps nothing to match them has been done since. The present wording is flexible enough to cover any and all permutations. qp10qp (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

fancruft? Not at all, since it is all well cited. Carlyle isn't even Bill's biggest fan (grumpy lowland Calvinist that he was) Read Ruskin on Shakespeare in Sesame and Lillies - or Coventry Patmore's essay in The Germ. They treat the Works as a secular Bible - quite literally. That's typical of Victorian authors. Even the "alternative author" theories are products of bardolatry, since they insist than aristocrat or philosopher has to be the author of such deep wisdom. Mere commercial theatre cannot have done it. Paul B (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go again on your POV soapbox. So Mark Twain was a bardolator? Walt Whitman? Charles Dickens? All three were anti-stratfordian, but I have a hard time believing they insisted that only an "aristocrat or philosopher has to be the author of such deep wisdom". "Dr" Paul continues to misrepresent the authorship question and the reasons behind it.Smatprt (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Dickens was not an antiStratfordian. In fact, he was instrumental in preserving the Shakespeare Birthplace.Tom Reedy (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean Shakespeare's "maybe" birthplace? Anyhow your off point. Maybe I mixed my Charles' up - How about Charlie Chaplin? or was it Charlie Brown? Seriously, I do recall that Dickens discussed (not dismissed) the Authorship Question and recognized that the missing information about WS was problematic.

No, he did not. He made a comment in a letter that translates into a criticism of people who must know every little detail about a person before they can appreciate that person's art, and who go snooping after such, but he never "recognized that the missing information about WS was problematic," and in fact he made several references to WS from Stratford as the author. His comment has been taken out of context by antiStratfordians as support for their theories, but that's because they do that with everything, trying to compensate for having no evidence for their notions.Tom Reedy (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. The alternative author theories arise from Shakespeare's eminence. That is pure historical fact. They come into being along with his canonisation and they mirror the particular form that canonisation took. And it's your soapbox, not mine. Your infantile need to put my title in parentheses speaks for itself. Paul B (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well since you said "please". Paul - it was you who felt the need to point out to all of us that "It's "Dr." Barlow", I assume to impress. Of course calling names and other bullying tactics are more your style - as your post above indicates. And again you mix your reasoning. All criticism (not just Bardolotry) came from Shakespeares standing. Well that is kind of obvious - if he wrote crap, who would care about any of it? But saying "since they insist that an aristocrat or philosopher has to be..." is just your personal take. If you really want to argue this, then in terms of their supposed bardolotry, please explain why Twain and Whitman "insist that an aristocrat or philosopher" etc. etc.Smatprt (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This page has the highest-quality citations available, not some blogger's garbage. This is serious analysis of real-world reaction to the Bard, not fancruft. Wrad (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that not one single ctiticism was agreed with, or even taken into account. You can have as many references as you like, but when the writing strays into the area of hero-worship it does not read well. BTW, he was called Will by his friends, or Shakespeare, but not the Bard... --andreasegde (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article hero-worships Shakespeare. But people hero-worship Shakespeare: surely the article needs to report that fact? And I'm sorry to say I agree with Paul: I think the current version is better than each of your proposed revisions, and I think he gives quite sound reasons. If you disagree with one or more of his points specifically, let's discuss. AndyJones (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and added my comments on the points I'd suggested we discuss, above. I don't have anything more to say on this thread, though, and I'm taking the discussion off my watchlist, now. AndyJones (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I half agreed with one point! However, the reason your criticisms were rejected is not, I think, because everyone is an uncritical fan. It's because every sentence has been picked to death for months, due to the fact that article was being prepared for 'featured' status. Paul B (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The only one I agree with is "appears." It would be more precise to say "It appears that he retired . . ." (although I disagree that he did, but our purpose here it to lay out the consensus view).Tom Reedy (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the comment about "now widely regarded" - Hasn't WS been widely regarded for quite some time - over a century? Or something like that?Smatprt (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See my comment in the thread below. In short, this language is based on academic and scholarly consensus as well as Wikipedia consensus. Leave it as is.--Alabamaboy (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hero-Worshipped (continued)

Then I am amazed that it passed FA, because a GA reviewer would have instantly spotted the phrases, and complained about them. Alexander the Great might have been "hero-worshipped" by his soldiers, but not Will. His works were/are highly regarded, but not the man himself. --andreasegde (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare was often hero-worshipped in Victorian times. There is plenty of written evidence to prove it. Bernard Shaw wrote about this at length; like you, he found the idea objectionable. qp10qp (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference when Will was given a Ticker-tape parade? His works are wonderful, but he was not personally worshipped (as he was dead at the time :) --andreasegde (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a well-documented ticker-tape parade for him on August 17th 1612. He was in New York to promote Hamlet II The Sequel: This Time It's A Prune Danish. AndyJones (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Wish I'dda been there. I'm sure there is a "sound reason" why Mr. Jones decided to add that comment. --andreasegde (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you ask a silly question... No, he didn't have Ticker-tape-parade, but he had the Shakespeare festival of 1769, which is often cited as the origin of "bardolatry". There have been several such events since. Paul B (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And this page is one of them, I presume. --andreasegde (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It accurately reports on his reputation. For a more detailed discussion we also have Shakespeare's reputation. If you make sarcastic remarks you should expect sarcastic replies. Or do you seriously believe that being dead means you can't be hero-worshipped? Most people who are treated as heroes are dead. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the phrases andreasegde complains about are how the academic and scholarly literature refers to his reputation. Equally as important, all of this language is the consensus language that survived the FA process.--Alabamaboy (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing note [c]

Hi! There is no note [c] in the text. I think you should look into it. Regards, Fred-J 21:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted "c" (it was a fossil from a previous version), but now I'll have to change all the notes following.Tom Reedy (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

All right. I'm obviously doing something wrong. I changed "d" to "c", but clicking on the links doesn't do anything. Can somebody tell me what I'm doing wrong?(I undid my changes so it will at least work for now.)Tom Reedy (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now, please double check. - Nunh-huh 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Works great. Thanks.Tom Reedy (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The virgin Lucrece?

The article says that "the virgin Lucrece is raped by the lustful Tarquin". But Lucrece wasn't a virgin. She was the wife of Collatinus. I wanted to fix it, but there's no edit button, just a source button, and when I pressed on that, it said that the page was semi-protected. Cowardly Lion (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. You will be able to edit WS after four days: this restriction on new users is to cut down on casual vandalism on the page. Well spotted! --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, many thanks. This is just the sort of change that will improve the article. I take the blame. qp10qp (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to being able to edit it. Cowardly Lion (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The world's pre-eminent dramatist?

This statement is far from neutral and amazingly, as I was going through the history, it's been there over a year! Saying that he is considered the greatest writer in the English language is one thing. Claiming that he is the world's "preeminent" dramatist (implying that he is above all other dramatists from anywhere else in the world) is akin to cultural imperialism. No playwright or author from any nation in the world can lay claim to being the preeminent dramatist or author. That is simply ridiculous. The introduction in general is already filled to the brim with loving praise of the man, which itself begs the question as to how neutral it really is compared to earlier versions which simply stated the facts, that Shakespeare was an "English playwright and author." But that aside, this single statement about "preeminence" is particularly over-the-top in its brazen flaunting of arrogance. I love English literature as much as the next man, but this is too much. I myself was about to modify it until I realized it had been sitting there for so long. Thus, I am commenting here before I make what I am sure would be a controversial change. Heaven forbid that one dare alter the introduction of such an article as this ever so slightly as to conform to proper Wikipedia policy. And I don't want to hear any arguments using the fact that Britannica calls him the "greatest playwright in all history" to justify such a position. Reports have shown that Britannica is nowhere near neutral (or necessarily even accurate as far as some of their science articles go) in its articles, and they shown a significant level of Anglophile bias in their presentation. I daresay Wikipedia is not the place for such fawning admiration. WGoldfarb (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been endlessly discussed. The statement is that he is "widely regarded" as the world's pre-eminent gramatist, and is well supported. It's nothing to do with cultural imperialism, since it's supported by the number of translations and performances throughout the word. It no more imperialistic to say that than to say that the Renaissance in Italy was the most influential movement in the visual arts is in some sense "Italian imperialiism". How is this "arrogant"? The fact that you don't want to hear an argument based on vaguely asserted "reports" is neither here nor there. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Goldfarb, as Paul notes, you left out the term "widely regarded", which has been sourced and sourced and sourced again - not just Britannica. Also- can you name another playwright that has been translated as often or as widely as Shakespeare? Doubtful. And as some will note, the article passed FA in its present state so controversial changes are unlikely to survive.Smatprt (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When did it stop saying "now" widely regarded, which was a further modifier (he wasn't always pre-eminent)? I would propose restoring that word.

On WGoldfarb's point, the claim is well sourced (note that we do not say "pre-eminent writer"). There are of course limits to the neutrality policy that stem from this being an English-language encyclopedia. True neutrality would involve looking at any world figure or event from the points of views of all nations in the world, and this is impossible. We tend to reference English-language sources, which operate within the cultural values of English-speaking societies. There is no way round this. qp10qp (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this question quite often, and we always ask the questioner who he thinks competes with Shakespeare for preminence as a dramatist, and sure-enough we get the names some pretty notable writers in response, but it's never difficult to demonstrate Shakespeare's preminence over Whoever. WGoldfarb, tell us who you have in mind, and we'll discuss. AndyJones (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the referencing of that sentence to some BBC poll, added since the FAC. The sentence is already referenced to Greenblatt, Bevington, and Wells. I remember Tom Reedy and I taking some care to reference it to good academic sources, so there's no need for a reference to a poll (or to Encyclopaedia Britannica, come to that).qp10qp (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's always the compromise of saying "one of" the greatest writers and preeminent dramatists (although in my view, this would be unnecessary). Would that help things? BuddingJournalist 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come across that wording, though. qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I've delved a good bit into non-Anglo cultures, and they also have a lot of respect for Shakespeare. As regards Arabic culture, for example, government leaders have been known to quote Shakespeare and even claim that he was an Arab. People all over the world study his plays, translate them, and respect them. There is no other playwright so widely respected. Period. We have several references to prove that. It's verifiable to reliable sources. There's nothing POV or Anglo about it. Wrad (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about changing these words. This issue has been debated before and the academic and Wikipedia consensus is to leave the phrase as is.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Chandos portrait

What happened to the portrait illustration? It appears someone has substituted versions. This one seems dank and dark. I've seen the original, and it is closer to the old one than this one, which appears to have been made before it was cleaned.Tom Reedy (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot work out what happened, but a trawl through the edit history suggests the chamge was made by User:Majorly, not here but on the image's page. Suggest you try User talk:Majorly. AndyJones (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This current one is larger and more detailed. Majorly (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not sufficient reason to change the picture. The current one is dark and unattractive and not as suitable for the article illlustration. You changed the picture without any warning or discussion, and now you have protected the image page so that others might not revert to the original picture. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. It is too dark. If you want it bigger, do it without making it dark, and don't own the image by protecting the page. That prevents consensus from being reached and improvements from being made. Wrad (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The image is featured, and reverting to the smaller worse quality version isn't helpful. It is pretty dark, but feel free to brighten it up in photoshop or something. What shouldn't be done is reverting to a worse quality (small) version. It's locked because of this disruption (not by me), but anyone can improve it please leave me a message. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The original image is sufficiently detailed for the purposes of the article, and I challenge you to show me some detail that is present in the new image but not in the old one. It is not WikiPedia's function to provide museum-quality reproductions that can be blown up to gigantic scale. And you still haven't explained your high-handed substitution without consulting anybody who edited this article.Tom Reedy (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made a brighter version of the image at the same resolution. Please unlock. Paul B (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom, the image is used in lots of places, not just this article, please read WP:OWN. The image is also stand alone, so doesn't need to suit the article. If you don't like the image, replace it with another. Majorly (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to explain why you changed the image without consulting anyone? Because you feel that you "own" the image? I can think of no other reason to lock the image the way you did. If you had bothered to consult the other editors here who worked for months on this article, you would have avoided all this.Tom Reedy (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not lock the image, please bother to check facts before accusing. This article is nothing to do with anything - the image is used in tons of other places. This article is not the be-all-end-all. As I said, replace it with another image (Image:Shakespeare_small.jpg or something) Majorly (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be willfully missing the point. You are the one who is acting as if it were your image by changing it without consulting anyone in order to put another notch in your Wiki featured article/image belt. Had you gone through the generally accepted procedures to change the article, i.e. discussed it here, no one would have gotten upset and it all could have been hashed out. But you chose to arbitrarily change the image without doing so, so you hardly have the right to complain when someone objects to your high-handed action. And at 475x600 pixels, it is hardly a "minute thumb image," so you are saying that in order to justify your actions. And again, I challenge you to point out one detail that is visible in the new version that is not in the old.

I am content with the improvements Paul has made, so I will drop this. But next time you want to get credit for another featured-status article or image, I and the rest of the editors would appreciate it if you followed traditional suggested wiki practice.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I have lightened it, but not too much. I could lighten it further, but to do so would probably lead to the loss of some information, even if made it livelier when seen in compressed form. Paul B (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the new image is interesting at full size but drabber than the previous one at thumbnail size. I suggest it's more helpful to upload alternative images separately rather than to an existing image file (Commons is not like a real-life art gallery, so there is plenty of space). One could then propose on talk pages whether to add any new version to an article. qp10qp (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This was not a different file, but essentially the same file lightened; but yes, I had thought of creating an alternative file-name. Several images exist in multiple files - usually because the uploader is not aware that the image is already there under another name, but sometimes as a deliberate "variant" version. There are multiple Mona Lisas for example. Paul B (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the image is fine now. I think it's great to have a featured picture in this article now. Wrad (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good job on lightening the image, Paul. Sorry to get so radical on defending the picture. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

April 23

he was born on April 23 because he died on his birthday

That's actually just a myth. Commonly believed, but not based on any facts at all. Wrad (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Most scholars believe that he was born on the 26th instead. C.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.81.199 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

without his permission?

"The Passionate Pilgrim, published under Shakespeare's name in 1599 without his permission, includes early versions of two of his sonnets, three extracts from Love's Labour's Lost, several poems known to be by other poets, and eleven poems of unknown authorship for which the attribution to Shakespeare has not been disproved"

Isn't "without his permission" one of those things that is impossible to verify? Or is there a back story to this statement?Smatprt (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a back story. He actually wrote a letter to the publisher expressing his anger, if I remember right. Wrad (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. I suppose I'll delete that phrase then. Smatprt (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a joke at all. I'm dead serious. Don't take it out unless you've done the research. Wrad (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I did think you were joking, especially when you consider that not one letter by WS has ever been discovered. Of course, if you have one Wrad, then BY GOD YOU ARE RICH!!! Smatprt (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Passionate Pilgrim article:

"Jaggard issued an expanded edition of The Passionate Pilgrim in 1612, contaning an additional nine poems — though all nine were by Thomas Heywood, from his Troia Britannica, which Jaggard had published in 1609. Heywood protested the piracy in his Apology for Actors (1612), where he wrote that Shakespeare was "much offended" with Jaggard for making "so bold with his name." Jaggard withdrew the attribution to Shakespeare from unsold copies of the 1612 edition."

So no, it wasn't Shakespeare's letter, but most scholars accept this statement as reason enough to believe it was published against Shakespeare's wishes, so the point stands. Wrad (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say what Wrad said. We get this from Heywood. qp10qp (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But that is Heywood's statement - not Shakespeare's. Heywood said WS was offended, but is that the same as Shakespeare saying so? Maybe Shakespeare was offended that other's poems were included with some of his? Perhaps there is another interpretation? Anyhow, the certainty of "without his permission" was what I questioned. I thought it might be better to soften it a bit. No big deal, but I thought I would pose the question.Smatprt (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"most scholars" - again - I question the certainty of the statement. Was there a survey of most scholars? If "most" do you mean "not all"? Smatprt (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Heywood is saying that Shakespeare was offended that Jaggard made so bold with his name. Add that to the fact that Jaggard withdrew his name from the next edition and it points to the fact that he did not have Shakespeare's permission to publish the book under his name the first time. qp10qp (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I get that there is a strong circumstantial case for what is generally believed - what I was originally wondering was if it was a well-founded guess or a known historical fact. I see that it is the former (like so many things having to do with WS). And don't get me wrong, I think it's probably correct. But I guess I wondered if we should stick a "probably", or a "most critics believe" or some such. Are there any critics who have another interpretation of Heywood than the one you cite? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the burden of proof is on you to come up with those critics if you're the one wanting to make the change. Heywood gives enough detail so that we know the reason Shakespeare was offended--he thought it would appear as if he were taking credit for someone else's work--and the subsequent action by Jaggard certainly reinforces Heywood's remarks.Tom Reedy (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any other interpretation of it. I also think sprinkling it with "probably"s would be overkill. "Most scholars believe" is as close as we get to fact in the humanities in general. Shakespeare isn't an exception. I think we've made things clear enough in that regard in this article. Wrad (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Heart or Hart?

Regarding these four edits, [5] [6] [7] [8] I think that it's most unlikely that the whole phrase was originally written in spelling identical to modern spelling, with the exception of "heart/hart", so it doesn't seem reasonable just to make one word archaic. Additionally, as Qp10qp said in the edit summary, if the quotation is referenced to Greenblatt, we should use the spelling found in that source. Cowardly Lion (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think we should use the original, since, as we say, scholars don't agree on the meaning of the words, and using one "translation" may be misleading. Shouldn't be too hard to dig one up. I do agree now that we should use either all archaic or all modern word forms, though. Sorry about that. Wrad (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we use the original spelling (which Honan, for one, gives), the quote would then jar, in my opinion, with "Oh, tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide". We are using modernised spelling for Shakespeare himself, after all. qp10qp (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the archaic spelling, in entire? Wrad (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"For there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with hisTygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and beeing an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey." qp10qp (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So the problem with using the archaic version is that it conflicts with the modern Shakespeare source we're using. Wrad (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And in this case with a specific quotation from Shakespeare which it references—and which the article quotes straight afterwards. qp10qp (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've found a source with the archaic spelling. The article Robert Greene (16th century) provides a link to Greene's Groats-worth of Wit, and that quotation can be found near the bottom with "vpstart" instead of "upstart", to make it look really authentic! While we mention Greenblatt immediately after, in the next footnote, we're not claiming to quote from Greenblatt's quote, so I don't see why we, as Wikipedia, can't quote directly from the that online source with the original spelling, and then mention whatever comment Greenblatt may have. I've changed it. Cowardly Lion (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen. One would then be re-citing to a primary text rather than to an author citing a primary text. But anyway, use of modern spellings for quotations from this period tends to be much more common, in my experience, than use of the original ones. I expect this is for ease of reading. On Wikipedia, we also have the problem of people correcting what they think are typos and therefore the need for the ugly "sic". I can provide an original spelling (without the "V") from a secondary source, if required, but do we really want to start going down that route? I don't have the original-language versions of Shakespeare himself, and I doubt many of us do. qp10qp (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to revert, feel free. I don't mind. I only added it because someone wanted the double meaning with "hart", which I don't personally find that significant anyway. I'm comfortable with either version, and can see arguments in favour of either. Cowardly Lion (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets wait for some other views. qp10qp (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Good idea. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the reasoning for using original spelling. If this is going to be in the original spelling, why not every other contemporary quotation, including Shakepeare's? Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and I think using the original spelling hinders comprehension. It's not like textual scholars consult Wikipedia (or at least I don't know of any). Tom Reedy (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree. It's not as simple as I thought it would be. Wrad (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What's all this about a double meaning of "hart" anyway? "A Tiger's male deer wrapped in a player's hide"? It doesn't make any sense, especially as "tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide" is perfectly straightforward. Or have I missed something? --GuillaumeTell (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A "hart" would be the natural prey of a tiger. So the "prey" in this interpretation would be the woman or the player (he is an actor who is very much desired and sought after; hunted). Not a stretch at all. I think it's more of a stretch to somehow say that this tiger's heart looks like a woman (?!) or a player (??) Or maybe I'm missing something, as well. Wrad (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In the "heart" interpretation, is it saying that this woman/player has the heart of a tiger? Meaning they are very, unexpectedly, ferocious based on their appearance? Wrad (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We lose the pun, and with it half the meaning, if we don't somehow get the hart/heart duality communicated in the quote. Perhaps a footnote is in order here. Wrad (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it all seems tremendously far-fetched to me. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more far-fetched than a lot of published Shakespearean criticism. But the thing is, unless it's published somewhere, we shouldn't really be the ones to suggest it. Cowardly Lion (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've self reverted. I don't think there's much point in using the original spelling, since we generally don't do that when we're quoting Shakespeare himself. And I think the heart/hart thing is a bit original research-y anyway, unless we find a source that comments on the double meaning. As I said earlier, I'm comfortable with either version, but I am leaning more in the direction of using the modern spelling. So I think I'll stay out of it now, and leave it for others to form consensus. Cowardly Lion (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not far fetched and it's not OR. Our own article states that this quote has several interpretations. (Shakespeare always wrote in puns, people!) By hiding the original, we are hiding those interpretations. Let's just have a footnote. Wrad (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the passage may have several ambiguities that haven't been completely understood, but the heart/hart pun is not one of them, or at least I've never heard anybody saw so until today. And the point of the quotation is for Shakespeare's biography, not to explain Elizabethan word play, so even if there is a pun, losing it doesn't affect the purpose of the quotation.Tom Reedy (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess it's enough to just say that the quote has varying interpretations (which we already do) and claim this brilliant pun discovery for myself! :) Wrad (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know you can really get bogged down if you try to cover all the bases and lose sight of the main intention.Tom Reedy (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Sometimes it's about having fun, not intent. This just isn't one of those times. Wrad (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Layout

Hi. Just passing through and noticed that the "Find more about" box at the end is stepping on some text. I would try to fix it myself, but I don't know much about layout. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I know a tiny bit about layout, and tried moving the Portal box and the Find more box so that they're at the end of the list of External links and just before the wide relatives 'n works boxes. They no longer obscured the text, but they both still appear on the right, with a lot of white space to their left (I didn't save this edit). Maybe the External links need to be turned into a column to fill the LH side? --GuillaumeTell (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it, but somewhat inelegantly - inserted a <br> at an appropriate place in the first external link's text. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Best-selling author of all time

I'm wondering if this fact should be added. Shakespeare's works have sold billions of copies since their publication. The only real competition has come from Agatha Christie. It just seems to me that to state Shakespeare's success at the bookstores would carry an important point. We talk a lot about the reaction of academics, but this would say a lot about the masses as well. If any other article was about the best-selling author of all time, or even someone in the top five, you can bet the article would say something about it. Just a point I've been pondering. Wrad (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just checking back to see if anyone's noticed this post. (???) Wrad (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be added, if there's a good source. Cowardly Lion (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But what source would that be? Best-seller lists are a comparatively recent phenomenon. List of best-selling books puts Shakespeare at the top of its list but strangely doesn't provide a citation... --GuillaumeTell (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty simple thing to find. Try the Guinness Book of World Records. Wrad (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and their information comes from ...? --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

They are a very trusted source when it comes to such things. That's good enough for me. Wrad (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that's an accepted scholarly source? And I would think that whoever wrote the Bible would be the best-selling author of all time, followed by whoever wrote the Koran.Tom Reedy (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of the addition. "Of all time" is unscholarly language. The claim also sounds like peacocking, which Shakespeare doesn't need. The Guinness Book of Records is a commercially sponsored product that I am sure does not check sales figures in the Arab world or China, most of which are probably unavailable anyway, particularly for the centuries preceding Shakespeare's birth. Certain things are unknowable. qp10qp (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a bit crass and surely unnecessary.Tom Reedy (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention unverifiable.--GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare's depth of understanding human psychology was far beyond his time. Perhaps in would not be beyond the scope of this article to address that fact. CWatchman (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Authorship comment moved from todo page.

The below comment from P pinkerton was moved here from the todo list.--Xover (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is good, but mention should be made at the start that the man from Stratford (1564-1616) is by no means accepted universally as the author of the works known as "Shakespeare"'s. An increasing body of scholarly work is bolstering the evidence for other candidates for the authorship. Such unorthodoxy, which once was seen as quirky, irrelevant, far-fetched or downright heretical, has gained scholastic ground. It is no longer a fringe-view. In particular, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is favoured - amongst the sceptics of the Stratfordian view -as the man most likely to have written the works, but there are cases to be made for the other candidates; Marlowe, Stanley, Derby, Bacon, etc.

For the unwary reader to be thrown into an article which treats the Stratford man's claim to the authorship as unchallenged fact, is bringing Wikipedia into some disrepute. Mention is made later in the article about "The Authorship question" but by then it is too little, too late.

The authorship debate should be stated at the beginning of the article: without it the article is a laughing-stock

P pinkerton (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned by numerous editors, the article achieved FA status in it's current form - which does, by the way, include a reference to the authorship issue in the opening section (end of paragraph 2) - so changing it would re-open a huge can of worms. We should just leave it alone and move on to improving other articles. Ppinkerton should reread the opening and perhaps withdraw his complaint.Smatprt (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Cowardly Lion (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please let's leave it as it is, at least as far as authorship theories go. This is one of the most comprehensive and fact-checked articles at Wikipedia. Not only does the second graf mention authorship, a link is also provided to the main article, so with the other references I think it is both fair and balanced. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

I've heard some debate that his name isn't William Shakespeare at all, but "Wm Shkspr". For all we know, it could've been pronounced Willum Shackspur. 76.126.29.36 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. There's a similar theory that your name is pronounced seventy-six one-two-six twenty-nine thirty-six. AndyJones (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - and I'm still laughing! Excellent! Smatprt (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)