Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Proposed principles for editing this article

1. Use only good, up-to-date or standard academic sources: these will usually be books published by highly regarded presses, such as Routledge, Methuen and university presses, and articles published in highly regarded scholarly journals and reviews.
2. Avoid referencing websites unless they are scholarly websites permitted to carry materials reproduced from scholarly publications. Wikipedia policy advises against citing the websites even of academics (Kathman's site would be an example) on the grounds that if what they say there is worth publishing professionally, it will have been so: cite the academics' books, not their websites, dissertations, or newspaper cuttings (policy makes exceptions, but they don't apply to this article).
3. If referencing a quote quoted in a book, optionally reference the quoted source where possible (full details may be lacking), but essentially reference the source which quotes it (see the reference to Boas quoted in Schanzer; Schanzer is the key reference).
4. Provide full book details, including ISBNs, location of publisher, page numbers/ranges (we still have way to go on those three).
5. List reference details consistently with the existing reference style.

qp10qp 02:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with qp10qp's proposed principles above. But I must state that this article is being held to a higher standard than almost every other featured article recently promoted on Wikipedia. I mean, have you seen the poorly sourced crap that's been on the front page lately? Wonderbra? Baby Gender Mentor? Endless FAs about pop songs and video games? While I'm usually an optimistic person, in this case I predict that an important article like this will never reach FA status. Each time it's brought up for a FAC, the article will spawn minor issues like if all the citations are in the exact same format (I've never heard that being a major issue before). And if that doesn't happen, edit wars will result over language that the article's authors previously reached consensus on, with new authors thinking their minor rewrites are absolutely vital and that the FAC should be opposed unless "home" is changed to "house" (or similar inane word changes). Or the concerns of a single editor will trip everything up, despite there being consensus among everyone else. I don't want to sound like sour grapes, but I'm tired of all this. I will not be editing this article any more. Still, I wish everyone the best with the work here.--Alabamaboy 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alabamaboy for the most part. I do think that this article will become an FA someday (most reviewers were able to put small things aside and Support it). However, I think that the standards this has been held to are more than I am personally able to meet. I may be able to add ISBNs and what not, but that's it. Someone better than me is going to have to do the gruntwork on their own. (I personally think demanding all the ISBNs is a good idea, but very nitpicky for FAC). If I could do it, I would, but since I can't, I'm moving on the other projects and getting a few more GAs under my belt. If you think there's anything I can do, just let me know and I'll help out. Wrad 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with all of the above. However, I feel discouraged by the fact that one person (the Director) can decide whether articles can become FAs or not. Isn't it Wikipedia principle that the encyclopedia can be edited by anyone without regulation by just one person? Can we be certain that this article will become an FA?Romeo in love 22:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have made it clear that my suggestions above weren't necessarily related to reaching FA status; they were simply aimed at making the article as professional and useful as possible. Citing ISBNs and formatting the references consistently aren't going to be considered pass-or-fail issues by FAC reviewers; but they are signs of an efficient article. I'm surprised at the negativity above; I've no doubt that this article will reach featured status sooner or later, perhaps even at the next time of asking. I don't agree with Wrad that the suggestions on the list above are hard to meet; some initial work is required (and I don't mind doing it) to add the ISBNs (they're easy to find: type book details into abebooks search) and make the formatting of the refs consistent, but after that the job of editors will be easier than it was before because they will be helped by a clear guideline and will be able to add references or improve/reject new ones by adhering to it.

I want to help get this article to FA; but I won't be able to do that if the editing group disbands, because I don't have many books on Shakespeare and can only access about half of those we reference at Google Books or Amazon Search Inside (I do have plenty of books on Elizabethan and Jacobean history, though, which is my thing). For example, someone today has changed the last sentence of the lead to read "200" years, rather than "150", and only someone with the book "Reinventing Shakespeare", which references that sentence, can make the correct editing response there (we now have "200 years" in the lead and "150" in the main body, a discrepancy which must be addressed). One trouble with having so many different books in the references is that no single editor will have read them all, and so teamwork remains essential to maintain the quality of the article. I hope Alabamaboy and Wrad will continue to look in and help: you are needed. qp10qp 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems we have lost some truly valuable editors. I understand their reasons and share much of their feelings. Having recently looked at other FAs, both Alabamaboy and Wrad are correct that this article has been held to a higher standard, and I think anyone looking at the discussion page will see a lot of pointless arguments. Having said that, I am not going to abandon the "group" (not that we ever had one), but there is going to have to be more give and take if this page is ever going to be taken seriously. And I do regret my part in any of the issues refered to. Smatprt 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not leaving. I'm just realizing that the article is getting to a higher standard than I can better. If you need any help accessing refs or improving citations, I'll be here. As for copyediting and serious content additions, I've never been a real contributor to this article anyway. Wrad 00:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would genuinely welcome your assistance in adding ISBNs. It's a tedious job which is probably best done two or three at a time, in a stray moment; they need to be appropriate to the exact edition (where no ISBNs exist, as for some older books, ASIN or OCLCs are OK). The reference formatting can wait for a while, I think, until an agreed system is in place. At the moment I am copyediting the article section by section, from the bottom up; but I am going very slowly because I'm checking the sourcing at the same time. After that, I will get to the ISBNs, formatting, etc. qp10qp 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't let the suggestion pass that no recent FA has been held to the same standards as this one was. Anne of Denmark (which I mainly wrote), promoted on 1 June, meets those standards. So do the following articles that I have reviewed in the past month: Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, Mary of Teck, An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Aelle of Sussex, Aethelbald of Mercia and Four times of the day. It's true that some substandard articles have been passed; but that's never going to happen with William Shakespeare, and rightly so. As soon as this article achieves FA status, there will be newspapers setting academics to review it; and if they find it lacking, the consequences for Wikipedia's reputation will be considerable. The article will have to reach Wikipedia's highest standards to make FA; no reason why we can't make sure that it does so.qp10qp 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's about how I was planning to do the ISBNs, and I agree about the ref format issue. I also don't like the idea that this article is never going to be an FA. Not true. I might not be able to do it, but WE can. Just because it's a key article means nothing as well. For example, Islam is an FA, after a lot of work. Fact is, the Shakespeare project needs a high standard, that's why we all joined it. I've learned a lot from this FAC. Yeah, I'm dissappointed, but we should expect it. Just imagine what will come up when we do Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet down the road. By the time we get there, we'll all be pros. This is probably going to be the hardest FA to get. The rest is downhill(-ish). We nearly have it now. Copyedit, ref format... that's usually the final step. I remember the days (less than a month ago) when this article had about 50 refs and some pretty lame prose. It's awesome now. Wrad 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone if they think that I had left the "group". A family emergency has come up, and I don't think I can get stable until summer vacation is over and I'm back in school. I do think that the William Shakespeare article has been held at a higher standard than articles such as Wonderbra. On the other hand, William Shakespeare is a core subject in any encyclopedia, so it's no wonder that it's handling is more strict. Who cares about Wonderbra anyway, right? :-P I am confident that you guys will be able to improve this article. Unfortunately, my school databases provide crappy material and I have limited access to my public library and my school library is obviously closed until classes resume. Therefore, I don't think I can help you anymore other than a few tidying up and citation improving. With a few improvements, I think that we can get this to an FA. The question is: would the Director agree with us?--Romeo in love 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

He won't have any choice if the article meets the criteria. It might be worth posting them here as a reminder of what we have to achieve:

Featured article criteria

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
   • (a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
   • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
   • (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
   • (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias; see neutral point of view.
   • (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; reversions of vandalism and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
2. It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects. Thus, it includes:
   • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
   • (b) a system of hierarchical headings;
   • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and
   • (d) consistently formatted inline citations, using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

At the moment, I believe that the following criteria are not yet met:

• 1.a: The prose is not yet brilliant, by any means, but hopefully my copy edit is gradually addressing that; be patient with me because re-researching each sentence is taking me ages (gaps in my editing record won't necessarily mean that I am not working on the article).
• 1.b: I've identified a few holes in the comprehensiveness, particularly in the "Style" section, and I am addressing this as I copy edit. For example, this evening I have been researching modernism and Shakespeare because in the "Reputation" section we seem to jump from Shaw to postmodernism, leaving out modernism. The article is close to comprehensiveness, though, and this criterion shouldn't be too hard to meet.
• 1.c: I'm finding occasional factual inaccuracies and misreferencing (see message higher up about Middleton and Peele); but I should be able to scour out any remaining such errors as I go through.
• 2.d: Consistently formatted inline citations: this will take time but is straightforward to achieve.

Looking at the above, you will see why I am so optimistic. The main criticism at FAC was about reliability of sources; but I'm not seeing any unreliable sources in this article any more. qp10qp 04:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I heard from Raul that one of the main reasons behind the denial was a lack of consensus among the editors. We should all take note of that. Smatprt 15:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's usually for lack of consensus among the reviewers, not the editors.qp10qp 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul commented: "Judging from numerous issues brought up on that page, I didn't consider the nomination to have a consensus to promote." - It sounds like he is talking about the editors Smatprt 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he is talking about the FAC page.qp10qp 00:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New FAC

Someone just re-applied for FAC, So you all might want to comment on the new FAC page. Wrad 17:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a malformed application, and so it hasn't gone through, as far as I can see. I would oppose strongly at the moment because the article doesn't yet meet the criteria, as detailed above. But I think we can get there in under a month.qp10qp 00:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm sorry that I re-applied, but I said on the page; we don't want this anymore. And I will remove the FAC. Okay? Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 11:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Meldshal, don't apologise; it's great to have you supporting the article. Would you be prepared to be one of the nominators when we do put it up again in a few weeks' time? qp10qp 12:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely! Thanks, Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 12:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight, Alabamaboy believed that since nominators can't vote on the FAC, we should be careful about having too many nominators. It might be better to have just one or two, so the rest of us can vote. Just a thought.Smatprt 14:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad edit to "Authorship question"

"Although all alternative candidates are rejected in academic circles, popular interest in the subject, particularly the Oxfordian theory, has continued into the 21st century."

User:Smatprt has edited the authorship section, which I thought was at last a consensus version, in a way that completely skews it. I would not support this wording for FAC, and it will be objected to there for certain. Is Smatprt not satisfied with having won the argument to include this section in the article at all? Since the matter was discussed, Smatprt has also changed the sentence in the lead to a version that says "Biographers know very little about Shakespeare's private life"... despite the arguments and edits against this, which I thought were settled in the past. On this edit the matter is simple: either we include the statement and counter it in the article with the assertions from other biographers that a lot is known about Shakespeare, or more than about other playwrights except Jonson (both copiously sourceable), which would make a very ugly sentence, or we use more inclusive language, as we did before and spare the readers. Smatprt knows very well how crucial this is: the premise to the alternative authorship theories is that suspiciously little is known about Shakespeare, whereas the counter-argument is that there is nothing unusual in the amount known about Shakespeare at all. We need to live with consensus versions, whether we agree with them or not. (There's much I disagree with in the article, including the inclusion of the authorship section, but I am willing to go with consensus.) I don't want this improving article to self-destruct again at the next FAC over the authorship question. I don't edit war, which is why I am raising this here. qp10qp 02:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Qp10qp - I was not aware that you had actually signed off on the "consensus" version, and as you have made several edits to the paragraph since, I am a bit surprised by your statement. Your other edits have stood (except your unfortunate change from "continues" to "endures"). The edits I restored were originally deleted because of "lack of scholarly sources". I have now researched them and found them in the proper sources. If the Wells book is not scholarly, than say so. But the double standard that is being employed should not be allowed. In fact, the leading candidate mantle has been Oxford's for over 40 years (I can cite that, too). It is completely appropriate for an encyclopedia to report this information, and the article would be complete without it. As others have noted, and what was noted at our first FAC, was that the authorship paragraph and the sentence in the lead, were incomplete, that they just "hung there", and this is absolutely true. As others editors continue to argue, the sentence in the lead is bad - there is no context, no explanation, it just "hangs there". The same is true of the somewhat supported "consensus" version. Regarding the lead sentence, the current edit is very different from the "lack of historical facts" argument. By refining it to lack of information about his "private" life and the added debate (even among mainstream scholars) caused by Shakespeare's "lost years" (and I believe he is the only major writer of the era who has his own classification "lost years"), this edit should not be controversial. The fact that you are making it so isn't helpful. Others have tried fixing that sentence but to no avail. They caused no outcry, but this one does? This one is sourced and can easily be double or triple sourced if you desire. And these are sources already approved by you and others. Regarding the paragraph edits - they too are referenced to your approved sources. In essence, if you aren't willing to provide any context, or reasons, for the issue, then the sentence and the paragraph will always be incomplete. Finaly - I do want to be clear - are you threatening to blackmail the FA process yourself if you don't get your way? Smatprt 03:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt, accusing Qp of blackmail is not really appropriate, since he (she?) is doing the final bit of work on this article for us without even being asked. I can see some of your concerns may be valid. I just wish you had posted this here before changing the article. It may have gone better that way. Anyway, let's take a look at what you have to say... Wrad 03:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt, all I want you to do is to leave the authorship parts alone. If you do that, there will be no issue. I am simply telling you what will cause problems at the FAC. Just please stop editing the authorship parts, because inch by inch you are moving them towards controversiality again. I know you mean well and can't see this point of view; but if you don't retreat from editing the authorship parts, you will torpedo the FAC, if only because of all the unseemly arguing that will result. It's not a reliable sources issue any more—we've solved that—it's a balance issue: please stop throwing extra words and phrases at it.qp10qp 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Shakespeare was also respectively modest about his innovative works, never truly boasting about his tremendous ability.

Where is this sourced from? How are we supposed to know this? We don't have much record of S's private conversation, so this is quite a bold statement. S seems quite modest in some parts of his sonnets, but in other parts he is confident of his ability. I think this sentence should be deleted.

where he passed away three years later at the age of 52.

Shakespeare isn't everyone's favourite kitten. We don't need a euphemism like "passed away". RedRabbit1983 08:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare created some of the most admired and creative plays in Western literature, with Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear considered among the world's greatest.

Is the "creative" part included in the reference? RedRabbit1983 08:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the last sentence has reverted to its old form: There has been considerable speculation about Shakespeare, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, and questions about his sexuality and religious beliefs.

The same problem remains: it is ugly. RedRabbit1983 08:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes - and the reason it's ugly is because the first half of the sentence keeps getting lopped off. Several attempts have been made to correct it but you keep deleting instead of trying to fix it. You're objection to the last attempt does not make sense. There is no denying that lack of information about Shakespeare's personal life, and the "lost years" has contributed "in part" to these ongoing speculations. And the statement applies to all the speculaitons - not just one or two. I am sincerely amazed that anyone would find this statement controversial and worth arguing about.Smatprt 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

One would think that a lead section about the world's greatest playwright would end on a point about his, um, great plays, or something, rather than his private life and whether he was gay, Catholic, or what not. If that stuff is to stay in the lead, it will have to be placed in a less important position.qp10qp 09:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But which corner do we sweep it to? We don't want to upset guests. RedRabbit1983 13:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just invert the positions of the second and third paras of the intro. Paul B 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes - and it's back to where it was many months ago - up in context of his life and works. Good suggestion, Paul.Smatprt 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact the final para - about his life - would most obviously follow from, or could be integrated with, the para about his early life e.g.:

Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, and at age eighteen married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children. Sometime between 1585 and 1592 Shakespeare moved to London, where he was an actor, writer, and part-owner of the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men (later known as the King's Men), with which he found financial success. Shakespeare appears to have retired to Stratford in 1613, where he died three years later at the age of 52. Beyiond this, biographers know little about Shakespeare's life. There has been considerable speculation, including and questions about his sexuality and religious beliefs, and even whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright.

Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1590 and 1612. He is one of the few playwrights of his time considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy, and many of his dramas, including Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear, are ranked among the greatest plays of Western literature. His works have greatly influenced subsequent theatre and literature, through their innovative use of plot, language, and genre. He is perhaps best known for expressing the wide range of human experience. He created complete human beings at a time when characters in many plays were either flat, or merely archetypes. Thus characters such as Macbeth and Shylock could commit despicable acts, yet still command the audience's sympathy because they were flawed human beings, not monsters. Shakespeare's works have been translated into every major living language and performed all over the world. Shakespeare has even influenced the English language itself, and many of his quotations and neologisms have passed into everyday usage.

Paul B 13:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I like these much better. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 12:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

1st para

His surviving works include approximately 38 plays and 154 sonnets, as well as a variety of other poems.

Three things here:

• "approximately" seems ridiculous to me (even though someone has hidden Please do not remove "approximately" next to the word). I don't believe that anyone doubts Shakespeare's authorship of at least part of each of Henry VIII, The Two Noble Kinsmen, Pericles and 1Henry VI, or that Shakespeare wrote all or most of the remaining plays. What is not known is whether he had a hand in any of the other plays attributed to him in whole or in part. Why not change this to say "His surviving works include at least 38 plays (some written with collaborators) and 154 sonnets", etc.? And it also removes an ambiguity - some readers might assume that "approximately" also refers to the sonnets.
• Since Note II refers only to the plays, the ref label should be placed after the word "plays", or after the bracket after "collaborators" if my suggestion above is adopted. If this is an offence against the MOS, then the sentence can be split in two.
• Why does Note II point to Shakespearean authorship as well as to the articles on collaborations and the Apocrypha? As far as I can see from the authorship article, those who claim that Shakespeare didn't write the plays don't appear to claim that he or their favoured candidate wrote some but not others. And the note is about the number of plays, whether written by Shakespeare or by "Shakespeare".

--GuillaumeTell 16:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Paul B 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm one of the guilty ones on this. However I strongly agree your short version is an improvement. Go ahead and change it. Am I right to understand that in your version the note disappears? If yes, I agree and I don't need to debate what's good or bad about it either. AndyJones 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think note II pointed to the Shakespeare Authorship page because that page used to have a section on academic debates about attribution and collaboration. looking over it I see that's now disappeared, so it does seem irrelevant. Paul B 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that Paul B amended the text as per my suggestion, but omitted the note, which didn't just point to the Authorship page. I've put it back in, but without that link. It seems to me that "the exact figures are unknowable" is an important point that adds a bit to the "at least". (Plus my old Sisson Complete Works edition makes a good case for S's authorship of a bit of Sir Thomas More.) I've moved the ref to the note back from the poems to the plays, where it belongs. --GuillaumeTell 21:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I just put back the "at least", which I think is a reasonable qualifier. Brandon Christopher 01:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I organized and rewrote the first introductory part and now it has been changed and unorganized. Here are the reasons I made the changes I did:

1. I don't like long paragraphs; short grafs invite the reader (This is probably a residual effect from my journalism background; almost all my academic papers are criticized for it--but Wikipedia is, after all, meant to be a popular encyclopedia.). 2. I think topic changes should be signaled with a new graf. 3. I think the information should be organized in a coherent manner with one topic logically flowing into the other instead of jamming unrelated topics together.

Here are the organizing principles I used for the six grafs:

1. Introduction.
2. Biographical overview
3. Works overview
4. Influence of the works
5. Critical opinion of the works
6. Speculation overview

As it has been changed, now the biographical information has been jammed together with the works, and the two elaborations about why the works are important--influence and critical assessment--have been jammed together. A case could be made for the latter, but the bio and works should be separate.

I did not add any new information because I assume that has already been hashed out. Tom Reedy 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the section headed "Edits" above. There was general agreement there that having the speculation para at the end gives it too much prominence, and that the best place for it is at the end of the biographical info. --GuillaumeTell 08:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the "Edits" section above and failed to see any general agreement. Perhaps I'm not reading closely enough and someone could point it out for me. But it's not biographical info; it's controversy info. I read the section on writing leads, and it says information should be ordered in its relative importance. The article has changed since I read it last, but at the time I read it it said that basic info about the topic should be followed by why it is important, and any controversy should follow that. In any case, it was an extremely awkward sentence that needed to be rewritten, similar to the sentence that said Shakespeare created people. And all this is irrelevant to why biographical info and works info are jammed together in the same graf. Tom Reedy 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have intermixed two different types of information--this time works info and controversy info. Can you not see the reason why they should be treated in separate paragraphs? It's an elementary grammatical principle. From the Wiki article on paragraphs:

A paragraph is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea, or the words of an author. . . . In non-fiction material, a paragraph starts with the main point, followed by sentences with supporting details. The non-fiction paragraph goes from the general to the specific to advance an argument or point of view. Each paragraph builds on what came before and lays the ground for what comes next. Paragraphs generally range two to eight sentences all combined in a single paragraphed statement.

Clearly information about the works and their importance is a separate topic from the later controversy about his life fueled by the lack of biographical detail. I'd like to hear from some others on this. Tom Reedy 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If the above was addressed to me, you are talking to the wrong person. I haven't intermixed anything. It's not too difficult to find out who made a particular alteration. --GuillaumeTell 00:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I commented hastily after reading your message above mine saying having the speculation graf at the end gives it too much prominence. It is Piotrus I am talking to. Tom Reedy 03:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But again, I see where Stephen has moved the controversy up into the bio graf on the basis that the speculation is about Sh's life. The Wiki style article I was referred to clearly states that the purpose of the lead should be "establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any," and "the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources."

I don't want to get in an argument or a pissing contest, and I'm not trying to push any authorship position. I just want someone to show me the logical, compositionally-based principles for rearranging the lead and intermixing topics in the same graf. I gave mine 7 messages above. Either you want as close to a professionally-written article as you can get or you don't, and if you insist on intermixing topics in the same graf you apparently don't. Making elementary mistakes in composition -- especially in the lead -- won't help you achieve FA status. Tom Reedy 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

was the hope drunk - wherein - you dressed yourself?

wherein not when, right?

Yes. If 'when' the phrase would be very odd. RedRabbit1983 11:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's "wherein" in McDonald's quotation of it, and it's "wherein" in my copy of the play (1.7.35-38).

By the way, I haven't added the line ref yet because I want to be consistent. Does anyone know which edition of Shakespeare we are line-referencing for this article? qp10qp 11:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we nominate either Penguin or Oxford? RedRabbit1983 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wondered whether it had already been decided or not. I've put the line-reffing on my list of things to do. The Oxfords are easy to access at Google Books. qp10qp 10:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

May I ask bluntly why this hasn't been emended yet? 14:10, 28 July 2007

If you'll take a look at the top of this page, you'll see a to-do list. Once we get done with other things on that list (referencing format, I believe, is at the bottom), maybe we'll get to this, unless you would personally like to do it. Wrad 13:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Standard for Shakespeare Authorship article

If this article is confined to only citing "academic sources" there would be no article. It is, by its very nature, a controversy. Contributors to the controversy are not usually in academic institutions but this does nor mean they are too stupid to assemble a cogent argument. Neither does it mean their standards of investigation are necessarily lower than those in academia. Usually, Wikipedia does not attempt to evaluate arguments, it being sufficient that they originated from a scholarly source. That will not work here. These controversial arguments must be evaluated and, of course, they must rely on cited evidence (which is different from citing academic opinion). The best one can hope for is a balance of conflicting views, and space must be allowed to state the arguments of all sides. The danger is that a supporter of one of these controversial viewpoints might attempt to force a particular point of view (bias the article). In this case, I recommend issuing a warning and possibly a ban because this behaviour destroys the efforts of the group to balance the article. (Puzzle Master 13:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

This discussion is continuing at Talk:Shakespearean authorship question#Standard for Shakespeare Authorship article. I suggest any comments go there, rather than here. AndyJones 12:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Following other visitors here, I shall post my analysis where I think appropriate. I laugh at your presumption of superiority in these forums. Unless I'm mistaken you have no more rights here than anyone else. (Puzzle Master 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

You are right. I have no more rights here than anyone else. And, of course, you may post your comments wherever you think appropriate. AndyJones 18:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Andy. Why are you bringing another article up on this articles talk page? It's distracting, whether or not I agree with what you have to say. Wrad 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare as actor

A sentence in the last bit of the London and Theatrical Career section reads There is a tradition that Shakespeare continued to act in various parts of his plays, such as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Adam in As You Like It, and the Chorus in Henry V. First, "act in various parts of his plays" reads rather strangely (as if he acted only in parts of his plays rather than all the way through them), and should be more along the lines of "act various parts in his plays" or "perform various roles in his plays". But, second, "continued to" implies that the article has already mentioned that he acted in his plays, which, as far as I can see, it hasn't. So maybe the sentence should read something like "There is a tradition that Shakespeare acted a number of roles in his plays, such as...." --GuillaumeTell 10:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it's best cut. I'm not finding any mention of this tradition in the books I'm reading. This is referenced to Ackroyd, who, one assumes from the paragraph, mentions it in order to discount it. We don't need to pad out the information out by mentioning all the traditions. (I already cut the one about him having an "affair" during a performance, which only dates back to the nineteenth century, I think.) qp10qp 11:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a well established tradition that he acted certain roles - in particular Hamlet's father. Don Foster did a word analysis designed to link Shakespeare's acting career with his writing, on the grounds that words and phrases he'd memorised to act would pop up in his written work. He wrote this up in the Summer 1995 issue of The Shakespeare Newsletter. The value of the technique is disputed, but the tradition of the roles are certainly established. Paul B 11:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not against mentioning traditions where they are regularly mentioned by biographies and articles about Shakespeare; though I agree with Guillaume that this paragraph needs rewriting. One thing I'm finding in the rather ridiculous amount of reading which I'm doing about Shakespeare at the moment is that there's no shortage of theories about every last detail of his life and works. I think the reason for this is that there's not much mileage in writing about him without trying to say something original. I quite like the weary tone you find in Schoenbaum or Honan; you can almost hear them sighing as they cut through one theory after another and opt for caution. But I expect they are being outsold by Ackroyd and Greenblatt.qp10qp 11:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

On this Foster theory, which I haven't read, I doubt it would specify whether Shakespeare acted Hamlet's father's ghost, Adam, or the Chorus in Henry V, because those characters don't have many words to say between them. Also, as a repertory actor, Shakespeare would have been acting several roles a week and understudying others. But there's a huge difference between surmise and facts; and we don't have any facts about what roles he acted. (There I go talking like a historian again: perhaps the threshold of speculation is different for literary studies.)qp10qp 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The tradition that he played Hamlet's father dates back to Rowe, who wrote that "I could never meet with any further account of him this way [his acting], than that the top of his performance was the Ghost in his own Hamlet" (Nicholas Rowe, Some Account of the Life of Mr Willliam Shakespeare, Works of Shakespeare, 1723 edition, London: Thonson, p.v). The claim that he played Adam also dates back to the 17th-18th C, I think, but I can't identify the specific source as yet. Foster's theory does specify certain roles. It's just a theory of course, but Foster argues that S typicallty took minor roles - usually characters who died or otherwise disappeared from the play relatively early, presumably so he could observe the progress of the play. An article by Foster can be read here [1]. He claims (rightly or wrongly) that he can show that S played Suffolk in Henry VI, Clarence in Richard III, the Ghost in Hamlet, Albany in Lear, and Duncan and Banquo in Macbeth. Paul B 15:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

John Davis in The Scourge of Folly (1610) says that S tended to play "kingly parts", a source also co-opted by Foster. Paul B 15:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That would exclude old Adam, then! I think that whether the sentence remains depends on how old the "tradition" is (an awful lot of British "traditions" don't go back any further than 1800). 1610 is fine in my book, so why not go with what Davis says, rather than engaging in naming of parts (to coin a phrase). --GuillaumeTell 15:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. It just says he tended to take such parts. These traditions are considered significant because of their age. Your odd comment about "British traditions" dating from 1800 is not really relevant. These are either genuinely old traditions or modern scholarly reconstructions. The traditions and the scholarship may both be wrong, but they are both well supported by sources. Paul B 15:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Rowe reference is well within living memory of S. I just quoted the page ref of the 1723 edition, but Rowe wrote much earlier and was working in the theatre from the end of the 17th C. Paul B 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The 1998 Cambridge University Press edition of "As You Like It", edited by Cynthia Marshall, states that the tradition that S played Adam dates to the 18thC. She also quotes T.W. Baldwin's suggestion for the original cast: Burbage as Orlando, Condell as Oliver, Heminges as Duke Senior, Cowley as William, WS as Adam, Pope as Jaques, and Armin as Touchstone. Of course this full cast list is little more than pure speculation. Paul B 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest, then, that you reorganise the sentence (which it still needs), as you have the access to verifiable sources that I don't, and can provide the refs. As for a lot of traditions not predating 1800, I wasn't referring specifically to Shakespeare but to things like Dick Turpin's ride to York, Scotsmen wearing kilts and all sorts of goings-on in the Mother of Parliaments. --GuillaumeTell 16:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dead set against mentioning the traditions, if that's what editors want, so long as they mentioned along with their origins; that means, in view of the comments above, that I would favour mentioning Rowe in the case of the ghost tradition and mid-eighteenth-century sources, or whatever for Adam. We should be careful about wanting to believe that Rowe had access to more than tradition, though, as he was unable to find out very much, by his own admission. (D'Avenant's story, for example, that Southampton gave Shakespeare £1,000 has more or less been scotched by historians, even though D'Avenant knew people who knew Shakespeare.) John Davies is a different matter, because that quote is not a tradition but a contemporary comment, and perhaps we should include it; unfortunately, it doesn't get us very far because Shakespeare would very likely have played some kingly parts. Heminges and Condell, after all, said that he was one of the principal actors in all his plays. The fact remains that we don't know what particular parts Shakespeare played, and there's no getting round that. qp10qp 17:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why Foster's theories should not be mentioned. He's a legitimate scholar. It's also worth noting that S is also listed as an actor - roles unspecified - in the published cast lists of Jonson's Sejanus and Every Man in His Humour. Paul B 17:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome Foster's theories if they aren't too far out (we are best to keep to mainstream material as far as possible). I've just been researching this question in Shakespeare Company, 1594-1642 by Andrew Gurr and Shakespeare the Player: A Life in the Theatre by John Southworth. The first is very cautious and judges it impossible to know what parts Shakespeare played; while the second follows a theory very like the one of Foster's and purports to name virtually every part played by Shakespeare, based on the notion that the parts he had played influenced the phrases he came out with in writing his plays. Personally, I'm with the first book and not the second; but my opinion is irrelevant so long as any speculation is referenced when placed in the article.

The recorded fact that Shakespeare played an important role in Every Man in His Humour is another counterweight to the idea that he might only have been associated with brief roles such as the ghost and the chorus. The factual evidence, such as it is, seems to be at odds with the traditions, which, I'm starting to suspect, may derive from an assumption that Shakespeare couldn't possibly have written all those masterpieces and acted busily in plays at the same time. But maybe he could: he wasn't normal. qp10qp 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the Adam tradition seems to derive from a guy called Oldys in the mid-eighteenth century who claimed to have got the information from one of Shakespeare's brothers during the Restoration, which apparently is impossible since they died before that. Later in the eighteenth century, the same anecdote is mentioned by someone called Capell, who claims to have heard it from an ancient inhabitant of Stratford. It's tosh on stilts, if you ask me. qp10qp 18:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just been reading that Foster article, and I think he's getting rather carried away with this SHAXICON business. The problem is, there's no control group: the programme looks for connections and finds them, but I notice that the roles it gives to Shakespeare are mainly very plain ones: Duncan, Albany, Henry IV, and various gentlemen and reporters. One reason the programme may not be picking up links with idiosyncratic roles might be that Shakespeare would be unlikely to repeat the style that they were written in, whereas he would be likely to repeat the style of the plainish roles here assigned to him. Hmmm.qp10qp 19:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Adam theory seems to be poorly supported. Even Davies's comment is unilluminating since it's simply a line of flattery to the effect that S played kings, but could also have communed with real kings. I'm somewhat skeptical of SHAXICON too; it lost some credibility after the Funeral Elegy debacle. Still, it seems to be generally taken seriously. Nevertheless, perhaps it's too marginal to include in this article. Paul B 23:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that even good scholars sometimes like to get involved in rather risky theories in this field, possibly because they hope to achieve posterity that way (Shakespeare studies seem to have a corrupting effect, like the ring of Gollum). For example, the respected scholar Gary Taylor enthusiastically attributed "Shall I die" to Shakespeare, and Brian Vickers regularly and with total conviction proposes attributions that strike other scholars as dubious (for example, that A Lover's Complaint was written by John Davies). I feel sorry for people who may read just one book about Shakespeare, because they may assume they are reading established facts or theories, and that may not be the case.qp10qp 09:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Trying to figre out how to send you a message is a trifle difficult. I am trying to find the source and the exact wording for a phrase in Shakespeare that says, in essence, 'sleep, that mends the tattered sleeve of care.' If you can help me, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Lynn Ridenour

I'm not sure exactly where the line is, but you can look at http://www.opensourceshakespeare.com. It has the text of all of his sonnets and plays under a search engine. Wrad 02:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put this question back here since there's a possibility Lynn won't pick up the message at her IP's talk page. The quotation you're looking for is Macbeth, Act 2 Scene 2 line ~35:

Methought I heard a voice cry 'Sleep no more!

Macbeth does murder sleep - the innocent sleep,

Sleep that knits up the ravelled sleave of care,

The death of each day's life, sore labour's bath,

Balm of hurt minds, great nature's second course,

Chief nourisher in life's feast.'

And for future reference, questions like this are best asked at the reference desk. AndyJones 08:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Awkward Phrase

From the style section: "He constantly matched telling phrases with telling actions" -- to me, this is not particularly clear. Any alternate suggestions? Brandon Christopher 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's close to what was in the source, but I'll try to think of a different phrasing. Writing about style is murder.qp10qp 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

I have a few problems with:

William Shakespeare (IPA: ['wɪliəm 'ʃeɪkspɪə] (RP) or ['wɪliəm 'ʃeɪkspɪɹ] (GA)) (baptised 26 April 1564 – died 23 April 1616)[I] English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.

Firstly, is it a sentence? Where's the verb?

Secondly, why several pronounciations? The article has an English subject so isn't RP good enough? Even then does it really need to be labelled "RP"? If we argue for including the American pronounciation don't we then need to explain how to pronounce his name in the vernacular of every other nation Shakespeare had no connection with?

Readability is awful. You get the guy's name, an open bracket, an abbreviation you probably don't recognise, a colon, a square bracket, a string of gobbledegook characters, some of them not supported on one of my computers, close square bracket open round bracket, another abbreviation you probably don't recognise, close round bracket, whoops, a word, where did that come from?, square bracket, more gobbledegook, close square bracket open round bracket, another obscure abbreviation, close a round bracket, close another round bracket, open another round bracket, abbreviated biographical data, close round bracket open square bracket, I, close square bracket, actually get into the prose of the not-quite-a-sentence which started a line ago.

I appreciate some of this guff is necessary, but can we tone it down a bit? AndyJones 13:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I say cut out the American bit of IPA. I've never seen that before. The rest of it is pretty standard. Add a verb, too ("is an"?) Wrad 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia style, and the first sentence without a verb is standard encyclopaedia-ese; all I did was rearrange and tighten up the information that was already there. The pronunciation guide should not be necessary, IMO. None of the other Elizabethan playwright articles have it, and I'm with you, I think it just makes it awkward and hard to read. Tom Reedy 20:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the British IPA, myself. Other playwright articles may not have it, but how many of those are FA? Wrad 20:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Checking similar FAs for writers, Asimov, Tolkein, Kipling, Heinlein, Yeats, Beckett -- even those that probably should have it, such as deAndrade and Pynchon -- lack an IPA. the name "Shakespeare" is ubiquitous in the culture and the only people who don't know how it's pronounced are probably those who have been hearing impaired from birth. Tom Reedy 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On the absence of a verb, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says "If possible, the article’s title is the subject of the first sentence of the article, for example, “This Manual of Style is a style guide”. The words "was an" therefore need to be reinserted. --GuillaumeTell 21:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So is there a consensus on the IPA? I think it's awkward, unnecessary and interrupts the flow. Tom Reedy 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is an obvious solution: leave only the RP. The AP is unnecessary because Americans, when reading the RP most times, pronounce words according to the GA anyway. The goobledeegook is there for those who can read the IPA. If you must deign to include the GA, you should allow the Australian pronunciation too, so that I know how to pronounce Shakespeare's name, when in a bar with drunk Australians. 09:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If it did any good, I wouldn't mind leaving it in, but I've looked at it on several different operation systems, and it's incomprehensible--just a few letters with some boxes in the place of characters that can't be displayed. So since that's obviously the way it looks to most people, I think it should be deleted. Tom Reedy 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The first sentence of articles is where people dump all sorts of bits and pieces; if it's not nipped in the bud, we'll end up with Shakespeare's name in Chinese and things like that.qp10qp 18:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD guideline

Since it appears I was reverted, please consider WP:LEAD#Length. More then four paragraphs in lead are not recommended.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments above in "1st para" section. In any case, jamming the sentences together to make one paragraph doesn't make it any shorter, and changing topics in the middle of a graf is a worse sin than having one more paragraph than the general recommendation.Tom Reedy 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"traditional" birth date

The cited work (Schoenbaum, A Compact Documentary Life) doesn't actually support the claim that there is a tradition of 3 days between birth and christening. In fact he says the opposite; the 3 days claim first appeared in Halliwell-Phillipps as a passing reference that "three days often elapsed" (my emphasis), was misconstrued as fact by Sidney Lee in "Life of William Shakespeare", and ran rampant from there. The relevant Schoenbaum cite is rather “Actually no evidence demonstrates that such a customary interval ever obtained.” He then goes on to quote the guidance from the Prayer Book of 1559, and concludes that one can “reasonably infer that Shakespeare was born on either the 21st, 22nd, or 23rd—Friday, Saturday, or Sunday—of April 1564.” (my emphasis) Xover 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but I didn't write that the 3-day rule was a tradition. I wrote that "children of the era were usually christened within 3 days of their birth," which seems to me to be consistent with Schoenbaum's passage. The idea that Sh. was born on the 23rd is tradition, though. (Actually Peter Farey did some research earlier this year and discovered that children were just as likely to have been christened on the same day they were born or up to a week later. IIRC, his thesis is that Sh. was probably christened on the day he was born because plague was rampant at the time.) Tom Reedy 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What Schoenbaum writes is that there is no hard evidence to date it any closer than between 24 April 1563 (based on his reported age at the time of death) and 23 April 1564 (when he was christened). He explicitly disclaims that there ever was any "usual" interval. He then, based on the guidance in the Book of Prayer (which results in a lengthy calculation involving what holy days and superstitions are relevant), speculates that it may fall on one of three dates (but does not find grounds for picking a specific date). He explicitly dismisses this "tradition" as a misreading of Halliwell-Phillipps, which in turn was actually wrong to begin with (as you support by reference to Peter Farey). In other words, it's plain wrong to specify a given date in the article; and even if one does, the cited source not only does not support it but even directly contradicts it. I would suggest removing this sentence entirely; and possibly replacing it with a summation of Schoenbaum and a note that the 23rd is a common misunderstanding. Xover 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to reply twice yesterday but something screwed up. I just went ahead and made that change. Thanks for the accuracy check. Nobody alone can find them all. I see a lot of other inaccuracies in the article but I haven't gotten down that far yet. Tom Reedy 14:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy (and elegant!) fix Tom! Xover 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Beginning

I believe that everyone is extremely excited, since the Shakespeare article is almost fully-prepared for Featured Article Status. However, I think that all of us working on the article should stop focusing on the beginning of the page and work on the lower sections. The beginning is great, but now we should mainly improve the sections that don't have as much information. I'm sorry, just my opinion. If it's rude, don't hesitate to remove it. Thanks, Meldshal42 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only trying to improve the awkward prose and ordering of paragraphs, working straight down from the top. I'm not trying to introduce new information, although I don't see how you can have a discussion about Shakespeare's style without quoting Kermode. Tom Reedy 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. That kind of stuff is okay, I'm talking about when someone changes a sentence and then a conflict breaks out whether it's good or not. Sorry, I don't really quote. Meldshal42 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm about half way through a deep copy edit and am looking at adding a subsection to "Plays", which will actually be about the plays, along the lines I've seen in other encyclopedias. I've been distracted at the moment because an article I contributed to has been unexpectedly put up for FAC, and I have to direct my efforts there for the moment. I wouldn't welcome an FAC here until the list at the top of this page has been ticked off. But you are right, Meldshal, we aren't that far away, and I'd be disappointed if we don't have this article ready for another FAC before the end of July.qp10qp 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So would I. So much hard work had been consistently and actively ( not so much by me) forced into this article that I would be extremely forlorn if this article is not promoted. Meldshal42 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Monument image

What happened to it? Tom Reedy 00:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's still there, so far as I can see. What's the problem? AndyJones 12:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It disappeared but apparently Wrad fixed the problem.Tom Reedy 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamnet Shakespeare

Both the William Shakespeare page and the Hamnet Shakespeare page say that Hamnet died of bubonic plague without citing a source. This is only speculation, and should either be identified as such with rewording or removed entirely. No one knows how Hamnet Shakespeare died. 71.62.29.185 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Patrick Bentley 7-13-07

It looks to me that this page does reference it in the next sentence. If it is speculation, that should be said, though. Wrad 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is speculation. His cause of death is unknown. Some sources say plague was epidemic in the year his death, but that is not borne out by the number of deaths in the Stratford register. Deaths didn't outpace bapisms until 1614. Tom Reedy 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

References redux

I've perused the archives for information about references, and while checking references in the early life section I notice Manual for Hamlet: Original text and facing-pages translation into contemporary English, which is a junior-high/high school-level work that doesn't use citations. It is used three times as a reference, all of them from a general bio of Shakespeare near the beginning of the book, similar to all such generic bios used in editions of the plays. Are such sources acceptable references? I'm planning on replacing it with cites from Baldwin and Cressy.Tom Reedy 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. The facts are uncontentious, to be found in every biography of Shakespeare. Paul B 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Like most wikipedia pages, this one has been written by a range of people from different backgrounds. I think that source would be perfectly OK for an article which wasn't applying for FA status, but re-referencing from scholarly sources is always best, where it is possible. AndyJones 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Baldwin and Cressy are very specialised, however. Paul B 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Minority POV complaint

I have filed a complaint on the Administrator's forum [[2]] against Smatprt for his alleged persistent minority POV editing of various Shakespeare-related articles. Anyone wishing to contribute testimony is welcome. (Felsommerfeld 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

I've found it good policy not to get involved in battles between religious sects. Tom Reedy 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Is this a joke? The signature beneath his portrait is not anything William Shakespeare ever wrote. Where did it come from? Tom Reedy 06:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's a crude copy of the signature from Page 2 of the will. It's a very crude copy if so, however; compare the italic "h" to the secretary "h" of the original, for example. I'll replace it with a proper facsimile of the signature from Page 3 of the will. --Sbp 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. This should be resolved now. --Sbp 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Until very recently we had this one from the will. It was added a while ago by Singing Badger after BenJonson/Roger pointed out that the signature previously used (this one) was not even Shakespeare's. The latter even appeared on the Oxford University's page for years until the error was pointed out to them. Paul B 10:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! That's funny as hell. Thanks for changing it, Sean. Tom Reedy 13:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was somebody named Zyxw on 13 June 2007. Tom Reedy 03:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the signature even need to be in the box? It's very small and visually very weak, and in checking other articles about writers, both modern and contemporary with Shakespeare, I don't see their signatures included.Tom Reedy 14:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if other articles don't have it, I like it. I think it's classy. I think it may be small, but that it is visually strong, as it gives the article a direct connection to the person. I'd like all writer articles to have these, personally. Wrad 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the article, just maybe not in the box. At one time it was in a box by itself, and it was larger, and I liked that better, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Tom Reedy 15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Need cites?

I don't know if y'all have discussed this or no, but I think this part of the intro needs citations, so whoever wrote the original copy should know where the info came from.

Shakespeare greatly influenced subsequent theatre and literature through his innovative use of plot, language, and genre, and even influenced the English language itself. Many of his quotations and neologisms have passed into everyday usage. Among literary and dramatic critics, Shakespeare is probably best known for creating completely-realised characters capable of expressing the wide range of human experience at a time when dramatic characters were either flat or merely archetypes. Thus even villains such as Macbeth and Shylock can command the audience's understanding -- if not sympathy -- because they are portrayed as recognizably flawed human beings, not monsters.

I'm also not satisfied with it as it stands and plan on rewriting it later when I get the time. Sh. may be best-known among dramatic critics for his characters (and also by his audiences), but among literary critics he's best known for his use of language. Tom Reedy 03:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've found it! It's an abridgement of a section which was (at the time of writing) in the article. That section and its sources can be seen here. AndyJones 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That section is still in the article, changed a bit, so I suppose I could get the cites from there when I get around to it unless somebody beats me to it (a consummation devoutly to be wished!). Right now I'm slowly making my way down graf-by-graf, and it's very slow. Looking ahead I think the style section needs some research and rewriting, the critical reputation section looks really good, and the authorship section needs maybe a couple of more grafs. That's just what I can see by a cursory scan. Tom Reedy 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to other article in introduction?

I see Slarre has added a link to the authorship article in the introduction along with the note, "See Shakespearean authorship question". Shouldn't this link be further down (which it already is)? I would think for the sake of readability and conciseness that no such links to any other article should be in the introduction. If it does, why not "See also: Shakespeare's influence and Shakespeare's influence on the English language" at the end of the last graf? If it absolutely needs a link to the article, it should be a silent link the same as the others in the introduction. Any discussion before I delete it? Tom Reedy 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would suggest undoing/reverting that change. Xover 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the link, it was already there. I just moved it from the eastern-egg style "written by others"-sentence into the more intuitive parenthesis. See Wikipedia:Piped link#Intuitiveness. /Slarre 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the reference is not exclusively to the authorship controversy (it also includes collaboration theories), if you want a link it should be silent, the state it was in previously. Again, this is the introductory section, where smooth readability takes precedence over all-encompassing inclusiveness. Tom Reedy 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have undone the last two changes that you made to the links. Again, the introductory section is not the place for those types of links IMO, and in the opinion of the other person who posted above. If you want to put them in, you need to gather a consensus that they should be in the introduction. Tom Reedy 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The links were already there -- s/he's just made them clearer, IMO, according to the policy s/he cited. Brandon Christopher 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That same article states that "[p]iped links are useful for preserving the grammatical structure and flow of a sentence," and then gives a couple of conditions that don't apply to this case. Neither of the links that were changed were easter-egg links, because both were very clear about what they referred to, so IMO the changes weren't justified. I'm not arguing against the use of those types of links in the article, just in the introduction. I'm not married to my position; it's just that I think those spelled-out links clutter the introduction.

So far we've got 2 for and 2 against. Tom Reedy 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no issue with the authorship one, but the other one might prove problematic in another way, since the list of words might soon be merged with Shakespeare's Influence. How about this as an alternative:

"Shakespeare greatly influenced subsequent theatre and literature through his innovative use of plot, language, and genre. Indeed, he has even influenced the English language itself and many of his quotations and neologisms have passed into everyday usage."

Brandon Christopher 19:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. Sometimes I think Wikipedia editors go a bit overboard on these types of links. In essence, most of the links above just define the words instead of going to, say, a list of words coined by Shakespeare or a list of Shakespearean quotations, so why not links going from each word to its definition? (I'm not arguing or suggesting either of the above! Wikipedia is, after all, merely an encyclopedia, not a scholarly resource, nor should it be.) Tom Reedy 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There are too many links. RedRabbit1983 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make more links; I just moved one.Brandon Christopher 18:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the change, since the only objections seem to have been about the number of links, and there are no more links in the new version than there were in the old.Brandon Christopher 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Age at death

I was going by the tombstone inscription, "obiit ano doi 1616 aetatis 53 die 23 apr." And then tallied up his age by hand and made a miscalculation, as I see by the tally sheet this morning (a perfect example of bias working to get the answer I was looking for). I understand the Latin to mean "Died 1616 A.D. aged 53 the 23rd day of April," but I'm not a Latinist. Could it mean "died in his 53rd year?" If so, that would mean he was born the 23rd or a day previous. Or it could just be a mistake. Tom Reedy 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mountains, molehills. When giving someone's age, with the accuracy the number is given, you have a whole year's worth of latitude in getting it right. cf. also Schoenbaum on his day of birth. Schoenbaum doesn't feel comfortable inferring a specific definition of a year from the tombstone — noting explicitly the ambiguity — but chooses, sensibly enough, to accept it as a contemporary reporting Shakespeare's age at death to be more or less correct; like one today might give one's age as “30” all the way from one's 29th birthday to the day before one's 31st. This in contrast with giving a specific date where the accuracy is much much greater.

I find it emminently reasonable to give his age at death as 53 based solely on what is on his gravestone, with no implied contradition with the uncertainty of his date of birth. Xover 13:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Literally: "He died 1616 A.D. of age 53 on the day 23 April." RedRabbit1983 14:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. He was certainly not aged 53. He may have been in his 53rd year (just), which might be what the inscription intends. Paul B 14:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that Tom has already suggested that reading, but it's still not reasonable to say he was 53 because of the tombstone. It contradicts the facts. Paul B 14:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was one of those late-night "Holy shit! This has been under our noses for 400 years and I'm the first one to notice it!" Shakespeare discoveries. I've had more than one of those. Mea culpa. Tom Reedy 14:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. My Latin dictionary says:

aetās, -ātis f age, life; time.

So I would suppose that "aetatis 53" means "of age 53", in keeping with the syntax. I don't know how it can be construed "in his 53rd year". RedRabbit1983 05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the soundest idea to go by gravestones in this period of history. If he died on the 23rd, we know that he must have just entered his 53rd year. In other words, as most books say, he died at the age of 52.qp10qp 10:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"must"? Do you have some secret info regarding his specific bithdate?Brandon Christopher 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, not "must". He might have been born on 24th or 25th, I suppose. Schoenbaum and Honan both assume that he was born on 21st, 22nd, or 23rd; I don't quite follow their reasoning, though—something to do with the fact that the prayer book said a child had to be baptised before the next Holy Day. 52 makes sense as the best estimate of his age at death, since Anno..aetatis 53 means "fifty-third year of age". qp10qp 05:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentences

Even villains such as Macbeth and Shylock can command the audience's understanding—"command the audience's understanding" sounds terribly unidiomatic. RedRabbit1983 05:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Among literary and dramatic critics, Shakespeare is probably best known for creating completely-realised characters capable of expressing the wide range of human experience at a time when dramatic characters were either flat or merely archetypes.—This is too drawn out. RedRabbit1983 05:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been 100% distracted by an unexpected and demanding FAC for an article I was involved in; but now that it has passed, I can go back to my slow upward plod of a rewrite/re-research/copyedit. I think that "Works" needs a whole new subsection providing short descriptions or accounts of the main plays (I've noticed such a section in other major encyclopedias). I am compiling this at the moment, and hopefully it will replace some of the vaguer stuff of the sort above.qp10qp 10:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Some good edits, RR. How about "engage the audience's understanding"? Tom Reedy 12:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe simply "obtain".Tom Reedy 12:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I put in "elicit" as a stopgap. As to your suggestions: "obtain" is serviceable; "engage" conveys a false idea—that the audience already understood the villains. As long as the sentence conveys the right sense and is idiomatic, I'm happy. RedRabbit1983 14:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

By 1594 Shakespeare was an actor, writer and part-owner of the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men, which, like others of the period, was named after its aristocratic sponsor.

Wouldn't the reader be suprised if, contrary to expectation, the Lord Chamerlain's men was not named after an aristocratic sponsor? I am having trouble justifying the relative clause at the end. RedRabbit1983 14:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it relates a bit of theatrical history in context, and I wouldn't depend too much on the reader's expectations. I doubt most Wikipedian readers know that much about early theatrical history.

Ok. It still looks like a clunky add-on, though. RedRabbit1983 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On another note, concerning your earlier edits, the only problem I have is this one: "Considerable speculation has been poured into this, addressing questions about his sexuality and religious beliefs . . . ." I think as it stands it implies that these are the only topics of speculation, so I think "including" is a better word choice. Also IMO there should be somehing at the end of "this," such as "this gap."Tom Reedy 14:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re "addressing": agreed; I was being careless. I removed "including" because I get tired of seeing it overused. Re "gap": I suggest "void", but you can add whatever you like. In both cases I was groping for an alternative. RedRabbit1983 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear how the question of S's sexuality relates to the "Lost Years" -- I think we should avoid too much causality in this formulation.Brandon Christopher 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How about removing the lost years reference completely? It's adequately addressed later, and it's not that major to be included in the intro, IMO. The sentence could read something like this: Biographers know very little about Shakespeare's private life, and considerable speculation has been poured into this void, including questions about his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were actually written by others.Tom Reedy 01:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about changing the sentence to get rid of what the biographers know. Something along the line of "Few records survive concerning Shakespeare's private life, and considerable speculation has been poured into this void, including questions about his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were actually written by others." Comments? Tom Reedy 15:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

London and theatrical career

Can we do something about London and theatrical career? It is too disjointed. RedRabbit1983 14:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'm planning to tighten and rewrite it after I remove the inaccuracy in the last graf in early life. It'll be a couple of days, tho.Tom Reedy 15:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be back in a couple of days, then. RedRabbit1983 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Some good edits to the introduction. I'd also like to move the sentence "His works have been performed all over the world and translated into every major living language" to the end of the first graf. Whuddya think?Tom Reedy 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you. I'm indifferent on the matter. RedRabbit1983 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that sometimes there are no clearly-defined principles behind edits (as I set forth above in "1st para"), and I wanted to discuss it if you had any objections. My rationale is that the reader should be able to get an overview of the subject just from reading the introductory section, and the introductory graf to that section should be a digest of the most important reasons why the subject is important. The global POV of his importance would be a nice expansion of the previous English POV.Tom Reedy 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Note 38

The way I read it, it seems to indicate that John Davies wrote Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare's Time, which -- unless claims of a zombie horde of Shakespeare critics are accurate -- strikes me as highly improbable. Am I just reading it wrong?Brandon Christopher 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Wrad 22:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures and white space

I like the way Andy has moved the monument picture so the effigy isn't looking off the page. Is there any way it could move up a bit so the type could wrap to lose the white space? Also the introductory section has a lot of white space. Is that Wikipedia standard or can the contents table box be shifted to landscape with columns inside? Or is this even worth consideration? Tom Reedy 21:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty standard, but I personally think the TOC is getting a bit long. A simple fix would be to simply bold the play categories in the Bibliography, rather than giving them headings. Wrad 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I just implemented my own proposal. The TOC is now shorter. What white space is left is kind of inevitable, now, and pretty standard for Wikipedia. Wrad 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are all the Notes needed?

Perhaps somewhat nitpicky, but… Do we really need all these notes on this page?

Note I and II are fine, but III and IV could (and IMO should) be collapsed into a single note. They're both attached to the same sentence and say essentially the same thing. In fact, since they both more or less proxy for the actual citation (French, Shakspeareanna Genealogica) — which, to add insult to injury, is actually citing a work that cites the work supporting the original sentence — it might even be better to just be rid of the notes alltogether and replace them with a citation (preferably even a better one).

V is probably ok, but it feels somewhat awkward to me.

I don't disagree with you about III and IV'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qp10qp (talk • contribs) 2007-07-20T03:06:54

The rest of the notes — VI through XIII — are all attached to the play titles listed in the Bibliography and all say essentially that some of the plays in the Shakespeare canon were possibly or probably or even certainly co-written with another. If that information needs to be on this page it can be summed up in one sentence: Some of Shakespeare's work was collaborative. The details of the collaborations would be much more accessible on the article about the play itself — particularly as the notes are attached to the link to the play's article — and would avoid cluttering this page. Xover 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Those last notes have proved to be essential, because people were messing with the play lists. As you know, there is a mass of scholarship around collaboration, and much of it is eccentric (in other words, an editor could come to the article with a certain source and say that someone else wrote such and such a play with Shakespeare or that other plays were collaborations). So the notes pin standard or consensus scholarship down or main disputes. This makes our lists pretty definitive, which is useful for those who come to the page (people need to know who the likely collaborators were; it's a crucial aspect of listing). The mere listing of the plays is a potentially controversial act, and the editor who wishes to change collaboration info needs to be confronted with the consensus scholarship.

One thing I propose to do is replace the big Roman numerals, with lower case letters, which will be far less obtrusive.

Compared to many articles I've seen, this one isn't overburdened with notes. Considering the subject, this is a miracle (and a credit to the editors), in my opinion

qp10qp 00:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also be in favor of combining three and four, as well as changing the format to lower case. QP makes a good point about the collaborations, though. I feel that that info is necessary. Wrad 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Good points qp10qp, although I think I disagree with you that they are “essential”. There are many such facts that are open to differing opinions and where we deal with it in normal editing (cf. e.g. Authorship in general). For the reader interested in the play, it's easier to follow the link to the page about the play — where comprehensive information can, presumably, be found — than the note link attached to it (particularly with the daggers and double daggers and…). IOW, I'm still inclined to address your point with a single sentence above, then with interspersed notes. If we need anything attached to the plays, I would prefer to use normal references there instead; in order to avoid obscuring the source of the information. A note that references a book that quotes another book is quite a breadcrumb trail to follow. Xover 08:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you touch upon a different matter there; and I am not a fan of the alphabetical noting, since I prefer normal notes in footnotes.

We are trying to get this article to FA level, and, on the whole, it offers better information, even in very short form, than that in most of the subsidiary articles, which haven't been edited and researched so thoroughly. This information is usually present in a sentence or two in the main text, but we can't do that with lists, obviously, which is why the information is added there in note form and why it has generated the main group of notes. There may be some better ways of noting the lists, but removing the information from this article altogether would represent a reduction in its usefulness, surely.qp10qp 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not personally convinced that “removing the information from this article altogether would represent a reduction in its usefulness”, but lets stipulate that it's the case for purposes of discussion. The paragraph above the lists — now actually in the very same section as the lists — reads, in part, “Plays thought to be only partly written by Shakespeare are marked with a dagger (†) below.” This actually illustrates two points; that the information, in summary form, is actually allready presented clearly and obviously to the reader, and that the plays in question are doubly marked for the same reason! Each play that has a note to the effect that it's a possible partial collaboration, and thus is tagged with a roman numeral, is also tagged with a † symbol to… indicate that it's a possible partial collaboration. Xover 21:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to avoid their being double marked. Any play designated as a collaboration by a cross would need a ref. Refs are now provided by the notes. Wrad 00:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

For right now I suggest we change cases on the note designations. I think everybody is in agreement on at least that part. Tom Reedy 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just combined notes III and IV, added a more authoritative, up-to-date and accessible source, and changed the spelling variation examples to those actually applying to William Shakespeare himself instead of his sister. I then changed all the following note designations, and if I'd been thinking I would have changed them all to lower case, since it's a pain in the ass. Tom Reedy 07:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It sure is. I just changed the big Roman numerals to normal little letters, and I will never get that hour of my life back again.qp10qp 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lookin' good!

This article is really starting to look good. It seems everyone working on it is trying to make it the best article possible instead of trying to further their agendas. When I first looked at this page 10 days ago, Shakespeare was creating human beings and some of the sentences seemed to be Babel Fish translations, and now it reads a lot better and looks much more professional. Tom Reedy 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's getting better, I agree. RedRabbit1983 07:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation confusion

Cites 42 and 43 are confused.

We have two Schoenbaum sources, yet the repeated cites only identify the author, not the work. (If it's any help so far there's only one Shakespeare's Lives cite that I know of, the rest are Compact, but I plan to use some more Lives cites in the authorship grafs.)

We also have repeating Rowe cites without identifying which Rowe or which work. The first Ackroyd cite is not a full cite, which comes later (is it the same work?)

And I'm not sure if I did cite 26 correctly; I don't think so. I can't figure out whether we're using a bastard Chicago style or what. What I want to do is cite Rowe's essay in the Internet and say that it originally appeared in his 6-volume 1709 Works of Shakespeare, but I can't find a Wiki template for that particular application. Can anybody help? Tom Reedy 05:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Consistent formatting is on the list of things to fix before the FA. At the moment I'd just roughly fit in with the present style, which varies here and there, and, as you say, is a little bastard. It makes sense only to work on the consistency once all the refs have been overhauled, which they haven't been yet. So far I've checked all references from 74 to the end (I'm working up from the bottom). I would suggest the following format. Jones, John (2005). Shakespeare's Fools. Cleveland: Cuyoga Press, 273. ISBN 123456789. My reason is that this is more or less the style used already and that it's relatively simple. There is a certain bastardy in it (but how Shakespearian), and that is inevitable because we are using notes as references, and style guides require slightly different forms for notes and references (as well as varying between each other); Wikipedia demands that the information only be clear and consistent. I think it's best to avoid templates because they foul up editors and multiple authorship, insert stray punctuation, and are difficult to combine and edit round.

For Schoenbaum, I've cited the compact, and the refs I've checked so far that I think Andy did from Schoenbaum before me are also from the compact. All we need to do is make two different abbreviated Schoenbaum refs, where there are more than one (for example: Schoenbaum, Lives and Schoenbaum Compact); this has been done with Wolfgang Clemen's books already. It needs doing with the Rowes, too, plus initials. Your Rowe cite needs to be something like: Rowe, Nicholas (1709). Some Account of the Life &c. of Mr. William Shakespear Works of Shakespeare. Town: Publisher. Link (with words not a number) and website details. This way, you are citing the book and saying where you read it (a convenience link). Since this sort of website is a convenience source, it is important to give as many details about the website as possible (Terry Gray, etc. edition used, retrieval date). The Ackroyd needs a full cite. I've just read Ackroyd and intend to add some references from him; so I'll sort it out when I do.qp10qp 17:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing--two, really. I notice some references cite encyclopedias. Are those acceptable?

Also is it preferable to cite original secondary sources "as cited in Chambers, Schoenbaum, etc?" While Schoenbaum is certainly a reliable and accessible source, a lot of the Compact cites are actually references to the original source by him. (And BTW, his given name is Sam, not Samuel. He always wrote it as "S.")Tom Reedy 21:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In theory, the encyclopedia references are acceptable; but if we want this article to reach a high standard, they should go. I can see why someone included them: presumably it was to rebuff anyone denying Shakespeare's stature. But we are able to ref Shakespeare's stature from other works than encyclopedias.

It is fine to cite primary sources via secondary sources; in fact it is preferable, since Wikipedia policy prefers intermediary sources to primary, where possible. If we cite a primary source directly, it means we are making an original act of selection, whereas if we cite a primary source through a secondary source, the act of selection and emphasis was made by our secondary source. If the primary source is clear from the article text ("Hamlet says....; Shakespeare wrote..."), I don't think it is necessary to mention it in the reference; but one can always say, "quoted by Schoenbaum, 63", or whatever, if it feels necessary.

As far as Schoenbaum's name is concerned, it is best to just use his initial (I don't know how he is named on Lives but on Compact he is named S.Schoenbaum).

qp10qp 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In both Lives and Compact Documentary Life, the Library of Congress data says "Schoenbaum, S. (Samuel), 1927-". Records and Images and his obituary in The Independent also refer to him as Samuel. He did indeed prefer to appear in print as "S. Schoenbaum"; I suggest that this therefore be used unless Wikipedia style dictates otherwise. But I can find no evidence that his given name was "Sam"... where are you getting that from? ! --Sbp 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From Alan Dessen. http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/0344.html and http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/0392.html. Tom Reedy 20:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC

How far off is this article from a second application as a FAC? RedRabbit1983 07:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would hope at least a month. I see lots wrong with it still, and I'm only about 25 percent done with what I want to do. My problem is I have another project I'm working on simultaneously, plus the unreasonable demands of that pesky job I have. Tom Reedy 14:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping for 1 August. This is my number one target between now and then. If it seems as if I'm not editing it at the moment, it's because I'm researching a complete overhaul of "Works" (minus "Poems", which I think is fine now). This involves a lot of reading (I've just read Shapiro, and I'm noting Bradley at the moment).qp10qp 16:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good good. Works is the weakest part of the article as it stands. RedRabbit1983 16:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Later years

Although Susanna married Dr John Hall,[48] there are no direct descendants of Shakespeare alive today.[49] Judith married Thomas Quiney but all of their children died very young,[50] and Susanna's daughter Elizabeth Hall died in 1670, marking the end of Shakespeare's lineage.[49]

I don't like the first sentence. Why, for instance, does it have "Although Susanna..." and not "Although Judith..."? I think perhaps this should be rewritten. RedRabbit1983 14:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The only thing that makes Susanna more notable than Judith in this respect is that her daughter lived the longest. I'm not actually wowed by the information that there are no direct descendants of Shakespeare alive today; but at least we could restrict ourselves to making the point once, rather than twice. The "although" and "but" are unnecessary. "Susanna married John Hall, and their daughter..." (or something like that) would do the job.qp10qp 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the repetition "there are no direct descendants of Shakespeare alive today" - "marking the end of Shakespeare's lineage" necessary? RedRabbit1983 00:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No.qp10qp 01:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought so. RedRabbit1983 01:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Works

Many of Shakespeare's plays are ranked among the greatest of Western literature.[54] They have been translated into every major living language[55] and are continually performed all over the world.

Can we either expand this or cut it? I cannot prevent myself from yawning every time I read it. RedRabbit1983 16:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? The lead is supposed to establish the most notable things about the subject. This seems to qualify. Wrad 17:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RR. Looking through the previous peer reviews and FACs, I noticed this sort of thing was slammed every time. The second sentence could certainly be rewritten as if it were less of a boast.qp10qp 17:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I quoted it from the Works section. RedRabbit1983 00:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

London and theatrical career

In 1596 Shakespeare moved to the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate.[36] In 1598 he appeared at the top of a list of actors in Every Man in His Humour by Ben Jonson,[37] and his name was featured on the title pages of published quartos—a sign that his name itself was a selling point for the volume.

These sentences look disjointed, and the first could do with expansion. RedRabbit1983 01:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but the second sentence is wrong.Tom Reedy 03:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Links

Hello all,

I'm new to Wikipedia talk pages, but wanted to propose a new link at the bottom of the Shakespeare page: www.speak-the-speech.org. In the spirit of full disclosure, the link is to a nonprofit, which I started, devoted to distributing free unabridged audio productions of Shakespeare's plays online in the style of old time radio. Please check it out and see if you think it would be a helpful link from this article. We only have five plays now available, but there are many more soon coming as we've been collaborating with other companies to donate recordings as well. If for some reason you do not think this would be a valuable resource to which this article should link, please let me know why-- we are striving to provide free productions that are helpful to students, teachers, and anyone with an interest in Shakespeare, and will appreciate your feedback. Thank-you.

SIncerely,

Peter Pressman Pspressman 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote no because there are literally hundreds of free resources out there, and we can't list all of them. Nor is it the mission of Wikipedia to provide exhaustive links to everything Shakespearian on the Internet. That's Google's job. Tom Reedy 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Most performed playwright of all time

... greatest writer in the entire universe, a wonderful humanitarian, and my dearest, dearest friend.. Here's my problem with it, Stephen. Generalized statements of this sort--even it true--tend to turn the article into mush. Although I don't doubt that Shakespeare is the most-performed playwright of all time, there is no way short of counting all the performances to support that statement. I think some of these types of statements are necessary, but it has already been stated well enough in the first sentence, and it is qualified by the clause "now widely regarded." And your source--an advertisement, no matter where it originates--states it as an assumption, and nowhere in the ad does it say the book proves that assumption. Tom Reedy 17:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Thank you for your explanation. It helps to know where you are coming from, and it makes it pretty easy to agree with you on this. I agree that "of all time" is simply too much, but I think I still prefer "the world's most performed playwright", which is a noteworthy statement as opposed to "performed all over the world", which is not that unique. I imagine "Cat in the Hat" and most of the Disney musicals have been performed all over the world so that statement seems a bit of "so what?". I'll defer to you on this, but I am sure you could marry these statements if you wished. I imagine between American Theatre Magazine and it's worldwide counterparts, the statement could be properly referenced, although I notice that similar assumptions do go unreferenced if they are not controversial. I also think it could be referenced by someone with more resources than I. Wrad? Anyhow, thanks again for the discussion. Smatprt 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I edited the sentence to tone it down. If you can find an acceptable reference, you're welcome to put it up, but I wouldn't rely on anyone else to find your references for you.

Here's an instructive exercise: In his new book, Jack Lynch calls Shakespeare "the universal Bard at the heart of English culture." Stanley Wells makes no such claim in his new book. Both are enjoyable reads by knowledgable, accurate authors; neither are intended for an academic audience. Lynch's book has no footnotes, endnotes or citations. Wells's does. Which one do you think would be a proper reference for an encyclopedia article?Tom Reedy 05:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's my answer (it was a trick question, which I see you didn't fall for): I think they both would be suitable, depending on how they were used, given that both are respected academics. I would be more apt to rely on Wells for factual information, though. Lynch I would be more likely to use in a situation where a counter opinion is provided and no hard conclusion is drawn. Just MHO. Tom Reedy 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

After a while, grand declarations about Shakespeare start to sound like platitudes. I suggest that we try to avoid offending our discerning audience, which will include FAC reviewers. RedRabbit1983 08:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, hence the title of this talk box. They contain no real factual information, and turn the article into mush. Tom Reedy 12:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Neighbours and S.W.A.T. have also attracted audiences all over the world, so it is dangerous to include "performed all over the world", lest the reader make the comparison. Disney is not all we should be worried about! RedRabbit1983 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

I've been wondering about this heading for a while; it just doesn't feel right. Is what follows strictly a bibliography? (biblio- really means "book-"). Although there are certainly books on the lists (the poetry books), our giving no publication details means the lists don't resemble bibliographies of the normal sort, which tend to be lists of scholarly works used by or useful to scholars. And works such as Cardenio could never be found in a book anyway because they are lost. I wonder if "List of works" (or something) might be a better title for this section. Any comments? qp10qp 00:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also thought it confusing. It's common to list, say, a director's filmography, so I guess this was named along the same vein. I like your idea for a name change. We could even shorten it to "Works". Wrad 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, we've got a section called "Works" already.qp10qp 02:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How about renaming that section "Plays and poems" and change "Bibliography" to "Works." "Bibliography" reminds me of a works cited. And why not go ahead and cut "Many of Shakespeare's plays are ranked among the greatest of Western literature.[54] They have been translated into every major living language[55] and are continually performed all over the world." It's just a repetition of the introductory section. Tom Reedy 04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that it is repetitious is a problem. The intro is supposed to be a repetition/summary of what the rest of the article already says. It's pretty common for sentences, especially sentences introducing a section, to mimic the intro, even in FA articles. Wrad 12:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that it is in the intro counts against it appearing later. The reader, at this point, is likely to groan, "Not this again! I thought its token appearance in the intro was enough." Unless there is specific information, its value is nought. RedRabbit1983 13:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bibliography" is definitely not right. I vote for "List of Works".

Two other points about that section:

• Is there some way in which the "Classification" section can be eliminated or reduced, or removed to the discussion of the plays above or something (it only refers to the plays)?
• What is "The Passionate Pilgrim" doing in the list of poems? It isn't a poem but an anthology, and it doesn't appear to contain anything definitely by WS that isn't a sonnet or a song from LLL.

--GuillaumeTell 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Greene’s attack is also the first notice of Shakespeare’s career as an actor, and biographers speculate his career began anywhere from the mid-1580's to just before Greene’s attack.[36][37]Chambers, WS, i 59.</ref>From 1594 his plays were performed exclusively by the playing company variously known as the Lord Chamberlain's Men (1594-96, 1597-1603) and Lord Hunsdon's Men (1596-97), a troupe owned by a partnership of profit-sharing players that included Shakespeare.<Schoenbaum, Compact, 184.</ref> It became the leading theatrical company in London, and after the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 it was transferred to royal patronage by the new king, James I, and thereafter became known as the King's Men (1603-42).[38] Evidence from both internal and external sources indicate that Shakespeare tailored the roles in his plays to the individual members of the troupe, changing his characters as membership in the company changed.[39]

Fix references, please. RedRabbit1983 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry; I'll be more careful in the future. Tom Reedy 12:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So will I. I've been guilty of much worse errors. :) RedRabbit1983 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentence

Alongside the traditional, sanctified Shakespeare, icon of Western culture, a postmodern Shakespeare has evoloved, adaptable to politicised interpretation and the needs of a diversified cultural market.

This is in need of explanation. RedRabbit1983 11:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like baloney to me. Soi disant "postmodernists" often construct an implausible straw man of "sanctified Shakespeare" in order to point out the obvious fact that the texts have been re-read and reinterpreted over history. It might be worth pointing to the increased emphasis on S as a professional and commercial writer as well as on the appropriation of S's works to various ideologies, but I think the opposition between 'sanctified' and 'postmodern' is far too crude - and is ultimately misleading. Paul B 11:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Should I cut the sentence for now? RedRabbit1983 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Paul B 11:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've cut it. It was a replacement for another one of those "Shakespeare is the greatest and most famous throughout the world" passages. As far as I could understand while wading through the gobbledegook of postmodern critical theory (which does have to be summarised here somewhere), Shakespeare is no longer regarded as sacrosanct in many critical and cultural contexts and is instead adapted to fit alternative agendas than those of the traditional western canon. But I think this is covered well enough by the previous sentence, now I come to look at it.qp10qp 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Another sentence

At the risk of sounding petty, I can't help but bring up this sentence:

Shakespeare may have written his own epitaph:

It sounds rather weak as a concluding sentence, and interrupts the flow. Does anyone have any ideas to improve it? RedRabbit1983 15:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete it. It's unsupported speculation. While he may have written it (it is in the first person), he may not have, and it's a very minor point. I think of more importance would be the monument inscription that compares him to Virgil and testifies to his contemporary reputation. Tom Reedy 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Get rid of it. AndyJones 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentences

Public records indicate that Shakespeare commuted between London and Stratford during his career. According to tax records, in 1596 Shakespeare lived in the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, when he was in London.

I never liked these sentences. I suggest removing "Public records indicate" and "According to tax records", which sap the prose by asserting the ideas too cautiously. Put them in a footnote if necessary. According to my friend, there shouldn't be a comma before "when".

He was granted the honour of burial in the chancel, not on account of his literary fame but for purchasing a share of the tithe of the church for £440.

The expression "not on account of... but for..." is awkward and unnecessary. I suggest removing the "not on account of..."; the reader can make the connection himself. RedRabbit1983 14:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right; it's an old journalese habit. I'll rewrite and instead of a fn, I'll find an appropriate cite. Tom Reedy 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the comma before "when" is to set off the previous geographical name, "Bishopgate," not to set off the subordinate clause following. Tom Reedy 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

When this is rewritten, may I put in a plea for the removal of the word "commuted" (in the sentence quoted first up above), and the subsitution of something less modern-sounding. It currently reads (to me, at least) as if he caught the 0845 train down to London every morning and came back on the 1715 in the evening. Something like "lived alternately in London and Stratford throughout his career", perhaps. --GuillaumeTell 21:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Chambers reference

Xover restored a reference I had reduced to a simple cite: Chambers, Edmund Kerchever (1930). William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press, i. pp.86-87. “We may put therefore in 1610 the beginning of Shakespeare's final years at his native Stratford, spent, according to Rowe, ‘as all men of good sense will wish theirs may be, in ease, retirement and the conversation of his friends’. […] After 1613 he wrote no more. Occasionally he visited his old haunts.”

I intend to replace the cite with another one, but I left it in place as a marker until I could do so. Here are the reasons I cut it down and why I intend to replace it:

1. Whether 1610 is actually "the beginning of his final years at Stratford" is unknown. Tempest is dated 1611, and not a few biographers think the 1613 fire that burned down the Globe might better mark the time he left show business. 2. Chambers quotes an unsupported speculation from Rowe as support, and adds one of his own ("Occasionally he visited his old haunts.") 3. The Chambers book has already been cited with the necessary bibliographic information in cite 33, so it is unnecessary to include it all in subsequent cites of the same book. Tom Reedy 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do, please, replace the reference with a better one! I originally introduced that Chambers reference to replace an inferior one (a critical Hamlet iirc), and rewrite the sentence to indicate the approximate 1610-1613 period rather than an absolute dating to 1613 (modified with “apparent”). However, until you introduce the better reference please do not arbitrarily change the reference format and in a way that loses information (the quoted material from the source, for one). I take it you have a preference for something akin to Harvard referencing, but as best I can tell there is no established consensus on what format to use; apart from an informally expressed preference for cite templates — which makes the reduced cites awkward to use — for books, journals, and web sources. Xover 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an established method of placing substantive quotes in the alphabetical notes and citations in the references.

I would agree that this has to be replaced; neither Rowe nor Chambers are up-to-date sources, and I feel that these suppositions have been partially superseded. For example, it is known that Shakespeare bought the gatehouse in Blackfriars, near the theatre, in 1613; he stayed there for a lengthy spell in 1614 and was also active in London in 1615. Two Noble Kinsmen was performed at Blackfriars, and it is arguable that Shakespeare could not have collaborated with Fletcher from Stratford. So to me, the word "retired" in the article is problematic. My impression is that Shakespeare was still semi-active in the London theatre till at least when the Globe burned down in 1613, and possibly afterwards.qp10qp 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This brings up a question I've thought about for a while. Exactly what references are preferable when writing Shakepeare's biography? Chambers, as you say, is out of date, but he is still a reliable source on matters of fact. Schoenbaum is the gold standard in my book, but even he has been superseded in a few obscure areas. Wells is reliable, but it is often difficult to reconstruct his reasoning, because he is skimpy on notes. Michael Wood is good, but his speculations are often a bit much and he doesn't reference. Tom Reedy 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Wood is a little loose and not fully scholarly, though he makes some interesting critical comments. None of us can read all the bios, but so far I have read Schoenbaum, Honan, Wood, and Ackroyd (plus Shapiro, who just looks at one year). Of these, I like Honan best (though he's the most boring) because he doesn't usually indulge in the constructive guesswork of the others (I am a history graduate and slightly alarmed by the Miss Marpleness of Shakespeare biographies). I think it's best to use recent books for the biography, because scholarship has often advanced on points of detail. When it comes to the literary aspect, however, I believe many of the old scholars are still valid: Bradley's lectures on the tragedies still strike me as some of the best criticism. And, of course, we have to note the history of terms, to an extent, bringing in Coleridge, Boas, Dowden, Granville Barker, Eliot, or whoever. qp10qp 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. If I am correct in surmising from the above list that you have not had the opportunity to peruse Chambers as yet, then I would heartily recommend you take the first opportunity to do so. It's really quite good. Look up “William Shakespeare: a Study of Facts and Problems” and “The Elizabethan Stage” (and even “The Mediaeval Stage”) at a well-stocked library (it's sadly out of print). In particular take a look at volume ii of Facts and Problems, which in essence is a listing of all the relevant evidence, grouped topically, and with annotation. The amount of speculation is… prudent.

I would not dispute Tom's asessment of Schoenbaum as the gold standard, but at least his Life (the Compact edition; I've not been able to lay my hands on the original) is a bit too narrative for reference. He's an excellent read, and I'm sure his scholarship is impeccable, but it's sometimes a bit of detective work to find his sources and reconstruct his reasoning. And I'll note that Schoenbaum relies heavily on Chambers (and Eccles, and Fripp, and Halliwell-Phillipps, and Malone, and…) for Life, so I suspect he would somewhat disagree that they are entirely outdated as sources.

I can hardly lay claim to any expertise on this topic, but if there is a better pure reference than Chambers out there I would dearly like a pointer to it! Miss Marple, as you say, is quite rampant. Xover 07:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Malone found perhaps the most information about Shakespeare, because there was the most for him to find. It's like Lagrange said about Newton: he was the best, but also the luckiest, as "one only finds once a system of the world to establish"; same thing with the history of the Bard. Halliwell-Phillipps seems to have been second for sheer frequency of finds. Hotson proved that you could still make a name for yourself in discovering facts about Shakespeare in the 20th century, but the crop is getting weaker and weaker—things like Alcock's superb Palmer's Farm discovery come about now once in a blue moon.

So yes, there is a continuing need for further collation of new facts into the old framework, but the old framework laid down by scholars like Malone and so superbly crystallised by Chambers and Honan and so on could well remain the bulk of the matter for all time, unless we find a host of letters or similar.

--Sbp 07:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree Chambers is very good on matters of fact, but he needs to be used judiciously. The particular reference I pointed out is not a fact, and I really don't think the case for retirement has been made by any biographer. Every biography contains these types of "facts" that have been superseded. I know of no sources that are entirely free of speculation, although most of it is completely reasonable, IMO. Take the debut of H5 Smatprt asked about. There is no doubt that H5 as we have it was first performed at the Globe, not because of the "wooden O" reference (the Globe was the reconstructed Theatre), but because of the topical reference to the Irish wars and Essex. So even though there is no specific documentary evidence of its debut, we can with confidence say that the play as we have it was first performed at the Globe. Another consideration is variety. We can't use just one or two sources for everything in the article. I prefer to cite specialists in certain areas of the biography, even though they might not be well-known to the general public, as long as they are accessible. So I suppose my preferences are, in order: Schoenbaum, Chambers, Honan, and then academic specialists, followed by the lesser-known and perhaps out-of-date early 20th-19th C. biographers. Tom Reedy 12:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes you so certain that the "wooden O" wasn't The Curtain? The Lord Chamberlain's Men played there until The Globe was built, possibly completed in the summer. The Essex reference was more topical early in the year, as I understand it, so it would've behooved them to play it as soon as it was written. Moreover, The Curtain is shown as a circular building on Ryther's 1640 map of London (according to Halliday, Companion, p.148, s.v. Curtain).

I'm not sure, either, what this has to do with your point about the superseding of old research. I understand that there is always a level of interpretation surrounding finds, and that for something like dating H5 the level of interpretation is high; but there are many facts on which the level of interpretation is sufficiently low to consider them to be unsupersedable. And as long as you state the original find as accurately as possible, you're less likely to come a cropper on it no matter what the level of interpretation. The leasing and subsequent mortgaging of Asbies might be a good case.

--Sbp 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not read Chambers but have read repeated examples of his work being corrected or supplemented. This is no shame on him, because scholarship advances, particularly on matters of fact. Wikipedia recommends using the best sources, and Chambers is no longer one of them for points of biography, even though more recent scholars may be standing on his shoulders.qp10qp 12:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not entirely agree that specialists are the best sources for our article. In a sense, Shakespeare's recent biographers are in the same game as us: trying to collate the best of all the specialist work into a general account. In that sense, they save us the impossible task of winnowing all the specialist research, a worrying proportion of which is in my opinion eccentric.qp10qp 12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My respect for Malone is tempered by the fact that he has been found to have forged a few things.qp10qp 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably should read Facts and Problems Volume II, because it's basically a collation of reference material just like the kind you're saying should be used; Chambers was at it long before Schoenbaum and Honan. Though other of Chambers's work has been superseded, that doesn't mean that it has all been superseded, and it also doesn't mean that someone with a general ability in the affair can't discern between the two. Take examples such as "1607, Dec. 31. B[uried]. Edmond Shakespeare, a player: in the Church." (p.18, F&PII). How is something like that going to go out of date? And Chambers cites Collier and Halliwell-Phillipps as his own sources on that; they hadn't gone out of date, and yet Collier was 50 or 100 years gone by Chambers's time.

If past scholarship is eccentric to us, moreover, what's to say that our present scholarship won't look eccentric in the future? As fields in general, science and history and so forth progress over time, but when you look at individual instances of discovery and fact and so on within those fields, some of them are binary propositions. I can still go back and cite Principia; people still do. I don't think, in summary, that applying blanket assertions about the validity of facts through time is a good idea. You have to judge them on a case by case basis, and you have to take all of the input into consideration. Broadly rubbishing outstanding scholars like Chambers is indefensible; you have to have a detailed view of such things before you can abstract outwards.

I'm not aware of Malone having forged anything. Perhaps you're thinking of Collier? Do you have a reference for the Malone forgeries? I'd be rather interested to read about that.

--Sbp 13:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right; I wonder why I thought that? Checking my books, I see that he was an exposer of forgeries (Vortigern, for example) and that when he published anything dubious, he said so.

Since some editors disagree with me about referencing updatings of Chambers, fair enough, I won't argue any further. References are only challengeable if they are to something which may be wrong, of course.qp10qp 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On eccentricity, I wasn't thinking of Chambers but of some specialised theorising that I've come across. qp10qp 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking up the wooden "O", it seems that it could refer to the Globe, the Curtain, or any theatre. Knowing Shakespeare, it probably refers to many other things too.qp10qp 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Malone had heaps of integrity as far as I'm aware. Collier, on the other hand, didn't, and yet he was also an extremely good researcher. He started to make little forgeries here and there to support his claims, nothing big, but it proved to be a slippery slope. Since these forgeries have been uncovered, however, it's safe to cite even him, which is just as well because he's still an occasionally useful repository of information. I find things in Halliwell-Phillipps all the time that you just can't find anywhere else; these guys are superb—even Collier.

I agree very much, incidentally, with Tom's original point about the "retirement". There'd been way to much attention paid to that basically groundless theory: Shakespeare probably wrote two plays with Fletcher in 1613, and he definitely visited London in 1614. What counts as retirement anyway? Stating that Shakespeare wrote his last play in c.1613 is okay. Stating that he mainly wrote with Fletcher in his later days is okay. Stating that Rowe said he retired to the countryside, too, is okay. But stating that he retired to Stratford in 1611 or whatever is just ridiculous.

Emilia Bassano for wooden O!

--Sbp 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He may even have written three plays for 1613, what with Cardenio.

He was also involved in a London court case in April 1615, to do with the Blackfriars gatehouse. No evidence that he attended, but one has to ask what he wanted this house for, if not to attend to theatre matters in the capital. This was only a year before his death. qp10qp 15:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong on the H5/Globe question. If I had checked (which is what we're supposed to be doing here!) I would have found out I was moving Essex's departure up a few months in my mind.

To address a few other points: you can usually get the original version of Schoenbaum's WS: A Documentary Life for less than $20 on abebooks. Records and Images, OTOH, is hard to find.

I think citing Chambers, Halliwell-Phillipps, and even Collier is fine, as long as we use proper discernment. As I'm sure everybody here knows, you can find a Shakespeare scholar to say damn near anything you want one to say. Frequently they are quoted out of context and then recombined by people with an agenda to lend credence to their theories. Tom Reedy 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Works section (was Bibliography)

I can't see what this section is trying to do. 95%+ of it (the Chronology and publication section, and the Classification section, and the list of plays) is about the plays, and it seems to me that all of this ought to be upstairs in the Plays section. The list of poems (which should not include The Passionate Pilgrim) should go in the Poems section. --GuillaumeTell 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning was to to make the "Plays" section actually about the plays (plots, themes, progression) and the "Works" section about technical matters of classification, publishing history, manuscripts, etc., which I thought went well together at the bottom. I intend to shorten and tighten some of that, though, because it starts to drift away from Shakespeare himself in places.

There is certainly an issue about the separation of the description of plays and poems from the technical stuff and the lists of works. But I think it would be a bad idea to put the lists in the "Plays"and "Poems" sections, because few people want to meet a list in the middle of an article. Some might stop reading there, I fear, assuming everything else was peripheral.

I disagree that The Passionate Pilgrim should not go on the poems list, since we know that some of the poems in it were by Shakespeare, and that for the others, in the words of the Oxford Shakespeare (which prints them), "the attribution to Shakespeare has not been disproved". Of course, it is not the only work on those lists which is partly by others' hands. qp10qp 19:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see the logic in the new organization. The lower section focuses entirely on technicalities. I do wonder if there is a better way to organize it, but I'll have to think about it awhile. Unless I think of something better, I'm fine with how it is. Wrad 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's going to stay there, it also needs a(nother) new title - just look at the TOC - 1. Life; 2. Plays; 3. Poems; .... 8. Works(!) (actually 99% about the Plays). And as for "The Passionate Pilgrim", clicking the link reveals that it consists of a few poems by WS that are also to be found in the Sonnets and in Love's Labours Lost, and a whole lot of other material that appears to be by other hands. Maybe that article needs to include the words from the Oxford that are quoted above? --GuillaumeTell 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We could put "Plays and Poems" as a senior title; and then, perhaps "Publishing history/Classification/Lists of works", or whatever. I'm sure we can find an elegant solution for the headings.

The quote from the Oxford is not so important (PP is triple reffed in the "Poems" section) as the fact that the Oxford prints The Passionate Pilgrim. And so does my childhood Hodek Complete Works. We would have to find a very strong reason to be different. It's true that two of the sonnets appear in Pilgrim, but they are different versions and so very valuable; and they are notable for being published before the others. There are eleven poems of unknown authorship in PP. So it is surely better to list a collection that might contain original work by Shakespeare than to leave it out because part of it might not be his.qp10qp 21:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, notwithstanding the (sourced) opinion in the Poems section above that PP is "largely mediocre". But then it needs an endnote similar to the ones for the plays that may (or may not) have included contributions by others, as all the other listed poems are by Shakespeare alone. --GuillaumeTell 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering what is meant by the words "without permission" in the recent PP edit. It's a little awkward. Without whose permission? Is that an assumption or a known fact? thanksSmatprt 14:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I also thought the wording was a little strange, but I do know that it is a known fact that it was printed under Shakespeare's name without his permission. Wrad 14:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it. Wrad 14:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We know that PP was published under Shakespeare's name without his permission from something Thomas Heywood said when some of his own poems were included in a reprint of 1612: "..the author I know much offended with Master Jaggard that, altogether unknown to him, presumed to make so bold with his name".qp10qp 18:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This change is one of the worst I've seen in this article's history. Now you have to search in several different places to find complete info about the plays. The "Chronology and publication" subsection should go back into the plays section and the "Classification" subsection should stay in the bibliograpy (and call it that, not "works"). And just FYI, the guidelines for all this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). This article must have a comprehensive bibliography, not simply placing the list of poems in the poetry section (as was suggested at the top of this talk section). Anything less than a complete bibliography, as used to exist here, will make the next FAC rather unlikely to pass.--Alabamaboy 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm refering to the overall change in the bibliography section, not Wrad's recent rewording.--Alabamaboy 15:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To me, a bibliography is a list of sources for the article. This is present in the References section. A List of Works [sc. "by Shakespeare"] is a List of Works, as in the MOS, not a Bibliography. See the discussion up above (TOC#36, "Bibliography"). --GuillaumeTell 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of a "bibliography" is wrong. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). All the examples given (Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges or Robert A. Heinlein bibliography) are called bibliography because that is the accepted term for a listing of an authors works. I've changed the section header in the article back to bibliography so the article follows Wikipedia norms.--Alabamaboy 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did place a suggested change of headings on the talk page for discussion in advance. I agree with Guillaume about the word "bibliography", but I don't think it is a big deal, and if someone wants to change it back, no matter. The same with the position of the textual info. If Alabamaboy wants to place it back in the "Plays" section", please do, though I would suggest at the end rather than the beginning of the descriptions of the plays.

My reasoning was that I felt "Plays" represented the spot where a reader was most likely to stop reading, as it seemed to arrest the narrative flow by talking about textual matters rather than about Shakespeare himself and his artistic development. Since there is also matter relating to textual issues in the classificatory and listing end-matter of the article, I thought it would be more appropriate there (where we introduce the listings by referring to the play categories found in the First Folio). (But I have threaded information about chronology into the Plays section, so that chronology no longer needs to be mentioned in a heading.)

No material has been removed from the lists of works or the references, so these aren't FAC issues.qp10qp 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided to BE BOLD and move the textual stuff back up to Plays and changed a few headings down below to make it a bit clearer what it's all about. This is really just to see if it seems to others to be a better arrangement - easier to think about it when it's in place rather than just suggestions. I haven't altered any text, nor have I checked whether the endnotes are in sequence, so anyone who is incensed about these changes should feel free to revert. Others may wish to improve my headings, or whatever. --GuillaumeTell 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem by me, except that I find your new title for the bottom bit rather wordy.qp10qp 21:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Why say "List of Shakespeare's known and putative works" when "Bibliography" works just as well?--Alabamaboy 00:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure; but strictly speaking, it's a list of works and apocrypha, not a bibliography. A bibliography includes publication details, and we haven't got room for that here (we'd have to start with the quartos, publishers, different versions etc., and work up through the main editions to the present time).qp10qp 02:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to go to the stake over this, but what the MOS actually says under "Lists of works" is:

Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of his or her works (such as Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges or Robert A. Heinlein bibliography) is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:ATT), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article.

Thus, what is to be provided in an article is a "List of works"; if a separate article is required, as with Borges and Heinlein, then that article is called "Bibliography of X" or "X bibliography". What we have here is the exact opposite - Bibliography in the article and List of works (currently incomplete) as a longer separate article. --GuillaumeTell 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct term on an author's list of works is bibliography. As was said, in Shakespeare's case complete publication information is impossible to list because there have been so many editions of his work. But do as you wish. I'm not going to argue anymore. I do want to add, though, that this article has really gone downhill in the last month. The plays section is extremely wordy and dense while useful information in the style section has been replaced with academic doubletalk which the average reader will not be able to get through. All of that makes me suspect that the question of what to call the bibliography/list of works is really not that big a deal. As I've said before, I doubt this article will ever pass FAC.--Alabamaboy 16:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that though you have been mildly disagreed with (the correct term for a list of works is "list of works"; the correct term for a list of publications is "bibliography"), your edit has stood. It's all about collaboration and allowing that others might have different approaches. Of course some of the new stuff is dense: it's a beginning, but watch and you will see the prose get clearer and clearer.qp10qp 16:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oxford was "Shake-spear"!!!

Anyone who REALLY knows "Shake-spear" and then reads all they can about the life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, surely becomes convinced that they are one and the same person.

I have written 4 plays on the Earl's life (as "Shake-spear") which seek to redress the gigantic injustice done to him, and am happy to provide brief FREE EXCERPTS -- simply email mmckern@optusnet.com.au

Thank you.

Marie McKern—

What would most interest us is peer-reviewed, scholarly sources making your claims, fictional accounts of Oxford's life aren't really going to help much. Wrad 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Later years" or "last years" or "death?"

The "later years" section is only about his death and burial. Should it be retitled? Tom Reedy 03:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe "Final years, will and burial"? --GuillaumeTell 21:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion in London and theatrical career

As it stood, the graf implied that Shakespeare bought his house with money made years later, and it also confused the reader about the roles of the various syndicates--the players and the householders. Tom Reedy 04:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Since the spelling is Brit, shouldn't the quotation marks be also? Tom Reedy 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked the same question earlier, and someone said that quotation marks, unlike spelling, was determined strictly by Wikipedia standards, regardless of nationality. Wrad 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As a Brit, I'm baffled by this. What's the difference between UK and US quotation marks? (Or, point me to where the earlier discussion was). --GuillaumeTell 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Brit: She was reading 'Tom Jones'.

'It's very funny,' she said.

Yank: She was reading "Tom Jones."

"It's very funny," she said. Tom Reedy 21:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The relevant reference here is WP:MOS on quotation marks. --Xover 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am now even more baffled (and note that the MOS does not mention Brit/US). Like everyone British that I know, I use double quotes, within which single quotes are used when necessary for quotes-within-quotes. What is the evidence that there is some UK rule that specifies single quotes as the general rule? Is this based on archaic British usage, or 1850 usage or what? (Or is it some American fantasy?) Feel free to continue this on my Talk page, as it's somewhat OT for here. --GuillaumeTell 00:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the article on quotation marks. Maybe the Yank style is taking over? :) Wrad 01:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of books printed in England, and they almost all use the single quotation marks. I also have some printed in the 1840s to early-1900s, and their quotation style was unbelievably tedious. They would use a quotation mark at the beginning of every line in a quotation. It is nerve-wracking! I'm sure however the Chinese do it is the wave of the future. Tom Reedy 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of my British-published books and, yes, they all use single quotes. So either I am really an American, or I was taught wrongly at school, or I read too much Erle Stanley Gardner in my youth, or publishers' rules over here are different from what real people do in real life. --GuillaumeTell 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Considered by many the greatest

(1) I think you have taken my edit as an example of political correctness. It isn't. We only have a small sample of the prolific works of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, for example, who were as fertile in invention and language and narrative power as Shakespeare, as many Greek scholars have thought. (2)The three sources you quote say almost the same thing, in the same words, without documentation. They cite a proverbial feeling among English speakers, and certainly many critics. (3) I share the judgement myself, but not for that reason do I think that a Japanese who considers Chikamatsu more moving, or a German, and there have been many, who esteem Schiller and Goethe as on a par or Spaniards who are more enthralled by Calderon or Lope de Vega, or Frenchmen men of letters, a large list could be supplied, and George Steiner wrote an essay on it for the TLS decades ago, who complain of his lack of attention to form, and prefer the controlled austerity of Racine or Corneille.

The three sources paraphrase the sound sense that Shakespeare is the best thing that happened to England since Boadicea,until Mrs Thatcher. The judgement is ours, as native speakers. But it would not stand long scrutiny if you trawled the waters of foreign criticism. We may be right, the others wrong, but only if we are equally at home in their cultural idioms, and then render an informed comparative judgement. It is an anglophone judgement, and one I would support, I repeat, but the small adjustment I add does honour to the complexities of judgement in comparative literature. Tutto qua, as Dante would have said.Nishidani 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• His pre-eminence isn't established by reference to who you or I think is the greatest. (That was Cassius Clay.) Shakespeare's pre-eminence is unquestioned, and easily sourced. He is the world's most performed and most translated playwright. His works are by far the world's best known. He is taught compulsorily in schools throughout the world. Nobody ranks alongside him. Whatever the alleged brilliance of Aeschulus, hardly anyone outside the highly-educated classes has heard of him. Everyone knows of Shakespeare. Calling him "one of..." is a disservice to readers of this encyclopedia. AndyJones 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you've made your case that it is an ethno-centric statement. Shakespeare has been translated and played in more than 100 different languages. I daresay no other playwright can match that, which would qualify him as pre-eminent in any language. And one qualification for pre-eminent would be extant, because we can't judge works we don't have. While I enjoy reading the Greeks, I doubt if I've seen 10 total productions in my life--half of them probably the same play--because they are not played as often as Shakespeare, nor are any other playwrights. Nor have any other playwrights generated the amount of criticism or biographical works that Shakespeare has.

Here are the definitions of pre-eminent according to the OED:

pre-eminent, adj.

1. Surpassing others in rank or excellence, or in respect of some quality; exceptionally distinguished; outstanding.

2. Rising or standing out above the rest; tallest. Also fig. rare.

<snip examples>

I certainly think the word can be justifiably applied to Shakespeare. Tom Reedy 20:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

AndyJones 'Shakespeare's pre-eminence is unquestioned'

All that statement underscores is your ignorance of the history of Shakespeare's reception (Voltaire, who did much to secure his name in France, grew to protest at his counter-classical grossness and lack of groomed stylistic restraint; Hugo thought him fascinating because grotesque, Tolstoy ordinary and as for GB Shaw, I hope I don't need to document his views on Shakespearomanie) etc.etc.etc.

'Whatever the alleged brilliance of Aeschulus, hardly anyone outside the highly-educated classes has heard of him.'AndyJones

Either Aiskhulos or Aeschylos, - no mongrel spelling please. By the way, very few, if any, 'allege' Aeschylus is 'brilliant'. Those who read Greek don't entertain doubts. That, like Shakespeare, his brilliance comes over only rarely in translation, explains your supposition.

Tom Reedy

Tom, if you love Shakespeare, you'll be familiar with the average impression he made in his lifetime, one of the best of a constellated star-system. The views you both espouse reflect an historical upturn in his critical and public reputation that came well over a century after his demise. As to the test of translation, the Bible has been translated into more than, wholly or part, a thousand languages, that does not make it the most important sacred book in the world. It merely attests to the overpowering ascendency of English as the lingua franca of the modern globalized world, and to the passionate spirit of proselytisation that motivates its believers, untroubled by competition from the two other monotheistic faiths, both of which prefer their sacred scripture to remain as it was, unadulterated by degradation into secular idiom and provincial vernaculars.

That said. I won't press the point. Shakespeare is my favourite author, with Homer. I just don't think the text is appropriate to a global encyclopedia, since it is only an exquisitely self-convincing provincialism that requires it. I am sufficiently convinced of his superiority (admitting this to be a prejudice) not to ever be tempted to assert or prove it to non-native speakers. I always remind myself that I must hold my silence, or otherwise learn twenty other languages to have the appropriate knowledge such a judgement would presupposeNishidani 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very well aware of Shakespeare's reputation during his lifetime and its subsequent growth and the reasons for it, but we're discussing his reputation now, not then. Nobody is saying he was the world's pre-eminent dramatist during his lifetime. And Shakespeare was considered the world's pre-eminent dramatist when French was the lingua franca (that's why it's called the lingua franca). And you might consider this: we are describing Shakespeare's reputation, not his rank of excellence in drama or poetry. Tom Reedy 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)