Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Calendars

I'm not sure what this edit should have said, but I assume it must be wrong in some way. The two dates surely can't be three days apart under one calendar and six days apart under the other. If it is correct, doesn't that need a few words of explanation? I thought we had discussed the subject and concluded that we wouldn't give both versions of the birthdate since the Gregorian calendar was introduced during Shakespeare's lifetime. Can someone who knows more about this than me please comment??? AndyJones (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I actually made 2 errors - I forgot that the Gregorian calendar was only introduced in 1582, after S. was born; and then I used a 13-day conversion factor rather than a 10-day one. I must be on drugs or something. Sorry. No harm intended. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice and clear. I guess we leave it as it is. AndyJones (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion of Spelling

the words "baptise" and "recognised" must be "baptize" and "recognized." If is an alternate spelling, sorry.

It's normal British spelling. Paul B (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Was he Sheikh Zubair?

Is this true? Any better/reliable referenceS? I have read that he was "Sheikh Zubair" or "Shaikh Al-Zubair". 77.98.117.4 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That’s a latter-day attempt to give him an identity he patently did not have. Nor was he a German. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, is their any good refutation of this. AWT (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly something that needs refuting, and I'd be surprised if anyone's ever paid any serious attention to it. Those who claim he was Sheikh Zubair are the ones who have to come up with the goods in terms of proof, and best of luck to them. Otherwise, academia would be having to spend its time refuting every crackpot idea anyone ever dreams up. This is why, for example, none of the major alternative theories (de Vere, Marlowe, Bacon et al), while they all have their supporters, have not made much headway in convincing the general mass of people that the real playwright was someone other than the traditionally accepted WS of Statford. But at least they were all English; they were all there on the ground, in England, when the events of "Shakespeare"'s life occurred. Can this be said for the Sheikh? If he wasn't even there, his supporters are starting way behind the 8-ball. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked into this some while ago. It seems to date back to an anglophile Arab intellectual of the 19th century: Ahmad Faris Shidyaq (1804-87), who speculated that Shakespeare's name was of Arab origin. He seems to have been extrapolating from a more widespread belief among pro-Western Arab intellectuals of the time that Othello demonstrated Shakespeare's deep understanding of Arabic culture, implying at the very least that he had contacts with the Islamic moors. Here's a webpage about al-Shidyaq, but it does not mention his Shakespeare theories [1]. The "Shiek Zubair" idea has since become somthing of a "meme" in the Arab world and was referred to by Colonel Qaddafi in one of his speeches. Paul B (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was english. We're talking about the guy with the quill here, yeah?

Ghost character

The above article, related to this article, is up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost character. Dalejenkins | 20:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-Edited -> New Works

I don't see a place mentioning works like this [http://www.amazon.com/All-Worlds-Grave-William-Shakespeare/dp/0452289866] --Erroneuz1 (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• The link above is to the Amazon page for something called "All the World's a Grave: A New Play by William Shakespeare (Paperback) by John Reed". And I don't understand Erroneuz1's question. Are you saying it should be mentioned somewhere? If so, why? AndyJones (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The play is a work of Shakespeare, because it is his writing. It's just be re-edited. I doubt Reed is the first man to come up with a new work of Shakespeare, and I don't see a section regarding new works of Shakespeare based on re-editing. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw one at the Drama Book Shop today called Hamthello, the Moor of Denmark, which is the same idea. I think it's the same author. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above, it definitely doesn't warrant a mention on this page, then. I suppose it could have its own page, if it can establish notability. AndyJones (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Andy on this. Also, many (if not all) theatrical directors do their own edits (thus creating their own "new" versions, I suppose) - but that would hardly merit notability as far as these pages are concerned. Smatprt (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I could see it's own page sure. It's a phenomenon worth documenting I thought. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of plays by Shakespeare

William Shakespeare only wrote 37 plays (not 38 as depicted in the article.) Just to prove this, here they are: 1. The First Part of King Henry the Sixth 2. The Second Part of King Henry the Sixth 3. The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth 4. King Richard the Third 5. Titus Andronicus 6. The Comedy of Errors 7. The Two Gentlemen of Verona 8. Love's Labour's Lost 9. Romeo and Juliet 10. A Midsummer Night's Dream 11. King John 12. The Taming of the Shrew 13. King Richard the Second 14. The Merchant of Venice 15. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth 16. The Second Part of King Henry the Fourth 17. King Henry the Fifth 18. Much Ado About Nothing 19. The Merry Wives of Windsor 20. Julius Caesar 21. As You Like It 22. Twelfth Night; or, What You Will 23. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark 24. Troilus and Cressida 25. All's Well That Ends Well 26. Measure for Measure 27. Othello, the Moor of Venice 28. Macbeth 29. King Lear 30. Antony and Cleopatra 31. Coriolanus 32. Timon of Athens 33. Pericles 34. Cymbeline 35. The Winter's Tale 36. The Tempest 37. King Henry the Eighth

This information comes from The Complete Works of William Shakespeare The Edition of the Shakespeare Head Press Oxford, Published by Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1994. Addandron (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The 38th play is The Two Noble Kinsmen. Paul B (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When are we going to up it to 40? It's pretty much agreed that he contributed to Edward III and Sir Thomas More.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The main difference is that The Two Noble Kinsmen was published under Shakespeare's name. The others were not. One only exists in manuscript and the other was published with no author attributed. Additionally, contributing a fairly small amount is rather different from being credited as a co-author. Elizabethan playwriting was rather like modern film scriptwriting. Numerous authors might contribute, but only a couple be credited. Paul B (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Paul on this (Shock and awe!). Having said that, there may come a time when Edward III should be added to the list, due to the fact that a number of major publishing houses are now including it in their collected works editions, and many (most?) scholars now agree that Shakespeare probably contributed as much, if not more, to Edward as he did, say, to Pericles. "More" on the other hand is considerably more controversial and if WS did contribute, it would have been in a very limited way. Smatprt (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont forget the lost "Cardenio" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

fact!

fact: Shakespeare married when he was only 18! Anne Hathaway was nearly 10 years older than him!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.87.35 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• fascinating!!! AndyJones (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

william sakespeares dad is called john shakespere and his two sisters died of early age.William Shakespeare inherited things of his dad when his dad died.The area William Shakespeare lived in was quite small but it was the main town of stratford on avon.

if you want more info go to www.historyaboutWilliamShakespeare.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.208.159 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Erm, also fascinating. AndyJones (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's also fascinating, but it needs a real source. Thanks for the information, I really think it's cool! BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 18:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Name's pronunciation

I think that the pronunciation is /ˈʃeɪkspiːə/ as expected, but since English names are often imaginatively spelled... it should be given, in any case. Sprocedato (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It used to be in there as both Americans and Brits say it, but someone took it out. Wrad (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeares year of birth

William Shakespeares year of birth is 1564 just minus 52 (his age at death) by 1616 (his year of death) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.105.244 (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Bowdler? Should There be a Sentence in this Article?

It seems kind of blatantly omitted, that Thomas Bowdler and the topic of bowdlerization isn't in this article. Does it or does it not deserve at least one or two sentences here? --VictorC (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, this is a featured article on a much-written-about topic, so it seems to me a mention of Bowlder needs to fight for its inclusion with any other subject we could choose to include. I did a quick "find" on the page to see if other people important in the Shakespeare Afterlife are here, and many aren't. Rowe is mentioned several times, for example, but Pope is not. Garrick gets a mention but Henry Irving isn't here and neither is Ellen Terry. Neither Olivier nor Branagh get a mention. All in all, I'd suggest dealing with Bowlderisation at Shakespeare's Plays rather than at William Shakespeare. AndyJones (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Commemoration and memorials??????

Where is the discussion on this topic? It was arbitrarily added with no discussion, and I don't think it should be in a general biographical article about Shakespeare. Which memorials and commemoratives should be included? The section would be enormous if it tried to list them all, or even just the major ones. What about a section on Shakespeare in pop culture? Comic books? Movies? Shakespeare in Japan? Shakespeare Festivals? The possibilities and problems are endless if we let this in. We've got a good, basic, lean feature status article. Larding it with more lipstick and jewelry is pointless.

I'm looking for some discussion before I delete it, or rather for someone to give me a good reason not to delete it. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to play Devil's Avocate for a bit: the funerary monument is one of very few tangible legacies from his life, and has provided important data for scholars, so it certainly deserves discussion here. --Xover (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The funerary monument at the graveside (article image by User:Tom Reedy, by the way) is dealt with in a single sentence at the end of the "later years and death" section. "...Different statues and memorials around the world" as part of a larger, separate section isn't the same thing. While accepting Xover's role as "devil's advocate", I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Stratford one should be deleted. Support Tom Reedy's proposal. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree this section is a bit too much, here, but I hate to see good-quality, properly sourced material deleted from Wikipedia simply because we don't want it in a particular featured article. Can I suggest that we merge it elswhere - perhaps to Shakespeare's life? AndyJones (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What, nobody is allowed to edit an article without discussing it first? I have never seen any such policy on Wikipedia - we are told we should be bold. The whole site would grind to a halt if we did that. The information was added in good faith and has references. Instead of threatening to delete acceptable material, you might conside a more creative approach - if you feel the mention of three notable statues is cluttering the article, why not start another article (Monuments to WS?), and refer to these more briefly? Plenty of other biographical articles contain information about monuments to notable people. Anyway I am sure that "larding it with more lipstick and jewelry" is just your special way of thanking people for their hard work. Warm regards, 09:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs)

The particular point about this article is that it's such a huge topic that editors need to be selective about what's included, a consideration which need not be made with most other subjects. We are at 85 KB now, which is above WP's suggested "probably should be divided" length in WP:SIZE. This is a special case, not one of editors seeking to abrogate the be bold policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why an article on Shakespeare memorials can't be created and linked to here in a single phrase or sentence. Someone created a whole article - albeit a short one - entitled Shakespeare Memorial on a statue in Sydney Australia. I made it into a disambiguation page by adding a link to the Stratford monument, but there may also already be other articles out there on other monuments - old and new. Bringing them together would be a good thing, charting the history of Shakespeare's public status. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this is good, properly referenced material and should be kept "somewhere". But I disagree that prior discussion is needed on any article before adding to it - as stated above, there is no such policy on WP. I would think that a possibility would be to add some of this material to the "later years and death" section right after the funerary line, and also add a link at the beginning (or end) of the section to a more expanded article elsewhere. Cheers everyone! Smatprt (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, these are all good, constructive ideas. Thank you. We are all editors, so we can all come up with ideas collaboratively. I don't plan to contribute further to this article - I simply wanted to add a small amount of relevant information that was noticably absent and leave it at that. You can organise it how you see fit.Cnbrb (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, with "collabratively" being the key word here. There was no collaboration; it just appeared. The problem with everyone editing and adding whatever they see fit is that this article went through a very comprehensive (some might even say painful) collaborative effort to achieve feature status. If everyone starts throwing in the kitchen sink, all that work will have been for nought, and we'll have just another crappy anything-goes WikiPedia article. I see nothing wrong with an article on Shakespeare monuments and memorials that the main article could link to, but this is basically a biographical general encyclopedia article.Tom Reedy (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the process worked just as intended. Someone added properly referenced material in good faith. Then the regular editors collaborated to make it better, creating a new article in the process. We can't expect everyone to come to our own star chamber on bended knee asking if we give our permission to add to the article. That's simply not the wiki-way. Yes - we must all be diligent in keeping the article to a high standard. But we don't own it.Smatprt (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - that's exactly the whole idea. Nobody "owns" an article and nobody should aim to prevent other editors adding to an article. Things do appear, and it's up to editors to work together to make the best decisions. To say that adding material is not collaborative is to misunderstand the WP idea. It says on the page editor "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." If this is a problem for anyone, I would seriously suggest that Wikipedia is not the right place for them. To respond to a good-faith addition of quality material by suggesting it is turning it into a "crappy anything-goes WikiPedia article" is about as far from collaborative as it can get and is in contravention of Wikpedia's civility policy. Adding a paragraph about an 18th-Century statue or representation on banknotes is hardly an insertion of trite pop-cultural references, and simply does not merit such a confrontational response, and I am astounded and disappointed. 11:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I did not say that the article "is turning it into a 'crappy anything-goes WikiPedia article.'" I said that if we start adding everything about Shakespeare there is to add, i.e. "the kitchen sink," we would end up with that type of article after all the months of hard work it took to get to the state it is in now. If you want to see some real confrontation, look back at the talk pages during the time that process was occurring. If you are "astounded and disappointed" with the mild remarks made on this topic, I suggest you either grow a pair or heed your own advice that WikiPedia might not be the right place for you.Tom Reedy (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom, the thing is; unless you happen to be intimately familiar with the history you refer to, you do come across as rather confrontational here (and note well, I'm talking about how it's perceived on the receiving end, not how it was intended). I don't think it's so much that Cnbrb or anyone else has thin skin so much as the rest of us perhaps having fought one too many dragons. In any case, material was added and the editors collaborated to further improve it (in this case by moving it to its own article and expanding it): the process worked and the outcome was a happy one. Might I suggest the best course here would be leaving well enough alone (and that's a general comment, not one aimed at anyone in particular)? --Xover (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is really no need to be so ... stroppy. I don't understand why this section has produced such a strong reaction in you. We don't want to be putting good contributors off. Paul B (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I don't mind if people stick their necks out. This article is rarely edited and yet is watched by a lot of users, so there is little risk of vandalism or of it falling apart. Somebody adds something, we'll talk it out, and the fact that they added it means we can see clearly what we're all talking about. Wrad (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! Go back and read everything I said and tell me where I was confrontive before I was accused of being such (and quoted out of context). Cnbrb got his feelings hurt because I questioned the addition of a new section without a discussion and gave good reasons for the added material to be pulled out and then took my comments out of context to make it seem as if I were attacking him personally. To hoist with his own petard, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I've watched many edits without saying a word; I certainly don't have the delusion the page is mine. Maybe I'm feeling a bit of unconscious chestiness, but I honestly don't see where I was abrasive or abusive at all until I was accused of being such. And the section stayed up for two weeks before anybody got the idea maybe it shouldn't be in the article, and I did say I was looking for some discussion before I deleted it in case there were some good reasons not to. Rude and confrontational? No, just straight, direct talk. And everything did come out OK, so I'm happy. And I've dribbled out my spleen. Carry on. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

othello

was othello the only play in which the villain survives at the end? Wikisaver62 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No: very few of the villains of the Comedies die. Don John in Much Ado and Antonio & Sebastian in The Tempest end their plays alive, for example. In the future, you'll probably find you get better answers to questions like this at the reference desk. AndyJones (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And Iago's closest parallel, Aaron the Moor, in Titus Andronicus. Wrad (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Aaron is buried alive and left to die, so I suppose he technically survives the end of the play, at least. And Iago is a prisoner, to be tortured and probably executed for killing his wife.Tom Reedy (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they're the only villians consigned to something "worse than death" at the end, but they are destined to die eventually. Wrad (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So was it the only tragedy to have the villain survive? Wikisaver62 (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This might be a radical idea, but may I suggest that you actually read the plays? At the very least, you could read the synopses of the plots in the Wikipedia articles about them. You can find links the all the plays at the end of the Shakespeare article.Tom Reedy (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends how you're defining "villain" I suppose. The three witches don't die in Macbeth, for example. AndyJones (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to cut in here, but instead of using bullet points to indent, please use these: : - I don't mean to be annoying, truly ;) It just messes up my screen, and a few that belong to other editors. Thanks so much! And no, that wasn't the only play in which the villain survives at the end, I don't think. BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 18:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys (or gals), this is a very enlightening disussion and has helped me a lot. Wikisaver62 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer: no, it isn't. Not that it matters anyway. There's no structurally significant singular villain. Iago and Othello are just two men fighting over their theories of language, anyway. [User:Bosola] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosola (talk • contribs) 08:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Should there be a section containing cited texts? It is not clear where all the references are from. What are: "Wood, 161.", "Shapiro, 151.", "Vickers, 8.", "Honan 258.", and many more? Snowman (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The references like this are to a page number in the book by the person named. In this article the first use of the reference on the page gives the full detail of the book referred to. Thus the information on the referenced texts are spread through the references. It may be clearer to break out the information from the full references into a separate section so all of the referenced texts are kept together. Keith D (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of that change. Wrad (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether the small increase in clarity would be outweighed by the considerable addition to the length of the page. A certain meticulousness went into the formatting of the references; could we be sure that whoever undertook the job of changing the method wouldn't make the odd omission or misrepresentation along the way (there's always a danger in reorganising references that one didn't look up oneself)? The refs could not just be copied because they would have to be reformatted from footnote style to bibliography style, if the job is to be done properly. So many are the refs that I'm sure someone would want to have them listed in small print to save space, thus in the end making for only a small advantage in readability over what we have now. Are there not more worthy deckchairs to be rearranged elsewhere? qp10qp (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. It would be long, hard, and tedious. It could be done, and it would probably be a benefit, but the effort might not be worth the benefit. However, if anyone feels confident enough to do it, I won't stand in the way. Wrad (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not stand in their way if they were doing it properly. qp10qp (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what is being proposed. Do you mean that each reference will have a complete citation of the book, author, publisher, etc? Or that the references in the text will be converted to MLA style? The style the references are in now is a bastard mixture of Chicago and MLA. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean making the style more like Hamlet. Wrad (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to tackle this. I really like the way references are presented in King Arthur, especially with the use of Template:Harvnb. How about if I start working at Talk:William Shakespeare/New reference style and see if people like what they see? BuddingJournalist 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Wrad (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started the process at Talk:William Shakespeare/New reference style. I've broken out about a third of the references and put them under a Bibliography section. The first 23 citations have been converted to Harvnb, so that clicking on them takes readers to the relevant entry in the Bibliography section. I've also corrected the occasional typo/small error in the references that I've come across. Anyone care to examine my handiwork before I soldier on? BuddingJournalist 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Update (Talk:William Shakespeare/New reference style) The lead and Life sections have been converted. Bibliography section is now two-thirds done. BuddingJournalist 21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet!Tom Reedy (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)