This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
The doubts about the authorship are about the attribution of the works in question. Does anyone dispute this simple statement? If so, Id like to understand why. Otherwise, it seems the simple edit I most recently made clarifies this point. I'm not sure why the edit would be controversial, but I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about it. Thanks, Smatprt ( talk) 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone support the retention of these lists? In my experience, they will just grow. The excrescent note a is a case in point.
As a related but distinct issue, I would point out that "hidden" formatting is against FA policy, since hidden sections do not print. Also the footnotes in them will not click when the information is hidden. qp10qp ( talk) 15:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we need the Sanders portrait, which someone has added to the article? I am in favour of removing it. I would anyway point out that it has been placed left at the top of a section, which is against MoS policy. qp10qp ( talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Shakespeare Comic Books [1]
Manga Shakespeare [2]
Kjones9 ( talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to add to this article. When using the {{editsemiprotected}}
template, you need to be very detailed about what you want to add and where you want to place it. Looking at the article, I find no place to insert a section on comics and manga. There also doesn't seem to be a section on the films or other media, so this probably isn't the right article. You might want to visit the Wikiproject and ask where this might fit best.
Celestra (
talk) 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Here [3], is a book based on the life of William Shakespeare, titled William Shakespeare. Beginning with the 2nd paragraph on page 24, to the end of the first paragraph on page 26, it talks about Shakespeares birth. When you are finished reading the 2 pages, please tell me, us, what your opinions are on his birth date. Thank you very much!! Signed- User:NickOrnstein
there is some controversy regarding Shakespeare overall attitude regarding jews, as to what gave rise to his negative portrayal of this ethnic group. In short there are 2 schools of thought
perhaps a section should be dedicated to this topic Waky02 ( talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
correct, perhaps then it should be added The Merchant of Venice page as suggested Waky02 ( talk) 12:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Since it seems, judging by the number of angels currently doing the jitterbug on a mere footnote of this article, that we have some spare attention from quite a few prolific Shakespearean editors, I'll be bold enough to note that WikiProject Shakespeare is always in need of more hands; and, in particular, we have an automatically updated Cleanup Listing of tasks for articles that fall within the scope of the project. The latter has quite a lot of simple fixes (a single cn tag, for instance) in various high-priority articles (for instance, Hamlet, a featured article, is tagged with a citation needed flag; and Samuel Johnson has a dead external link) where a little bit of attention from an interested editor could do a lot of good with relatively little effort.
The current collaboration for the project is The Tempest, which is in need of more hands to bring it to Featured Article status (there's even a tentative todo list for it).
Just thought I'd, you know, mention it in case anyone was interested... :-) -- Xover ( talk) 14:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
[this thread refers to previous discussions archived at Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive 18] -- Xover ( talk) 14:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the various “…cowritten by…” type footnotes, I see they're only used in the list of plays. The relevant plays, being probable collaborations, are also marked with a † to indicate that they're collaborations. And just to make absolutely sure we cover our bases, several of them are also marked with a * to indicate they're romances. So for a bunch of these plays the name is followed by “…*†[x]”.
I think I may have suggested this before, but I really don't think we need to specify the various theories on collaborations in this article at all, and certainly not crammed into the list of plays. My suggestion would be to just get rid of all these footnotes and, if anything, cover that material over in
Shakespeare's plays somewhere.
If we absolutely must have all the possible collaborations in this article, I think it would be much preferable to add a full section on it (yes, even considering our space constraints) and maybe a main article link over to
Shakespeare's collaborations (which, trust me, can stand a lot more material; it's almost a stub!) or something.
Thoughts? --
Xover (
talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
My suggestions:
The idea of collaboration wasn't originated by critics. The title page of the 1st edition of 2NK described it as by Fletcher & Shakespeare. I don't think there were any critics before then (1632, was it?) who suggested it.
May I remind people yet again that there are many different degrees of collaboration, ranging from Macbeth, nearly all by WS, to More, nearly all not by him. Any phrasing as vague as those suggested above doesn't take account of this. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the first is better, but I suggest it be modified like so: "His surviving works, including some collaborations, consist of 38 plays,[c] 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems." That leaves room for those collaborations outside the canonical 38, such as STM and who knows what else. I take it all the collaboration notes will then be deleted. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, no "long concluded," whether it be by critics or scholars. It reminds me of grading all those freshman papers while chewing tinfoil. And let's reach a consensus on what we're doing before deciding on the wording. I'm OK with it either way, but I lean toward cutting instead of rearranging. Thoughts from other editors? Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[this thread refers to previous discussions archived at Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive 18] -- Xover ( talk) 14:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
As a response to the criticism that the four periods are too neat, I've removed the first paragraph of this section (see below). This was originally added in response to a specific request at FAC that the section have an overview to introduce it. As such it has no content separate from that which follows and is therefore dispensable.
Scholars have often noted four periods in Shakespeare's writing career.<ref>{{Harvnb|Dowden|1881|loc=48–9}}</ref> It is widely believed that until the mid-1590s, he wrote mainly comedies influenced by Roman and Italian models and history plays in the popular chronicle tradition. His second period began in about 1595 with the tragedy Romeo and Juliet and ended with the tragedy of Julius Caesar in 1599. During this time, he wrote what are considered his greatest comedies and histories. From about 1600 to about 1608, his "tragic period", Shakespeare wrote mostly tragedies, and from about 1608 to 1613, mainly tragicomedies, also called romances.
As for the rest of the section, I would caution anyone who seeks to change it to bear in mind the danger of this information becoming listy. That would, in effect, make it more difficult to read. It's very tricky to cover all Shakespeare's plays in such a short space (to say the least), and to make it readable there have to be some generalising patterns and groupings. Obviously, it would suit those who don't believe Shakespeare wrote these plays to have the scholarly traditions on chronology and periods destabilised, but that in itself should not be the premise on which any revision of this section is attempted (if revision be thought necessary). qp10qp ( talk) 11:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
SVGs are preferred here on Wikipedia..they allow infinite resolution zooming in, with no loss of quality. They also have more crisper lies, allowing for a more clean image. The SVG I have provided is a trace of the original image, and is literally the same, just in a different format. I don't see the fuss of changing it. Connormah ( talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "(small) minority" claim is an interpretation of the survey that is unsourced. Not because the poll does (or does not) indicate that there are doubts about the authorship of the plays, but because interpretation of the survey results is not something we should be doing on wikipedia. In my opinion, the only acceptable way to include anything from this survey would be to say something like "six percent of the respondents answered yes to the question do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?", which, of course, is a non-starter. We should leave our scholarly hats and discussions about selection biases at home when editing wikipedia and drop any reference to the survey unless a reliably sourced interpretation of the survey can be found. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 12:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the Holderness reference from the authorship paragraph because I looked up the pages references given and could find nothing relevant to the material. If whoever added the note can produce the relevant material from that reference, feel free to revert. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
The doubts about the authorship are about the attribution of the works in question. Does anyone dispute this simple statement? If so, Id like to understand why. Otherwise, it seems the simple edit I most recently made clarifies this point. I'm not sure why the edit would be controversial, but I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about it. Thanks, Smatprt ( talk) 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone support the retention of these lists? In my experience, they will just grow. The excrescent note a is a case in point.
As a related but distinct issue, I would point out that "hidden" formatting is against FA policy, since hidden sections do not print. Also the footnotes in them will not click when the information is hidden. qp10qp ( talk) 15:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we need the Sanders portrait, which someone has added to the article? I am in favour of removing it. I would anyway point out that it has been placed left at the top of a section, which is against MoS policy. qp10qp ( talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Shakespeare Comic Books [1]
Manga Shakespeare [2]
Kjones9 ( talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to add to this article. When using the {{editsemiprotected}}
template, you need to be very detailed about what you want to add and where you want to place it. Looking at the article, I find no place to insert a section on comics and manga. There also doesn't seem to be a section on the films or other media, so this probably isn't the right article. You might want to visit the Wikiproject and ask where this might fit best.
Celestra (
talk) 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Here [3], is a book based on the life of William Shakespeare, titled William Shakespeare. Beginning with the 2nd paragraph on page 24, to the end of the first paragraph on page 26, it talks about Shakespeares birth. When you are finished reading the 2 pages, please tell me, us, what your opinions are on his birth date. Thank you very much!! Signed- User:NickOrnstein
there is some controversy regarding Shakespeare overall attitude regarding jews, as to what gave rise to his negative portrayal of this ethnic group. In short there are 2 schools of thought
perhaps a section should be dedicated to this topic Waky02 ( talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
correct, perhaps then it should be added The Merchant of Venice page as suggested Waky02 ( talk) 12:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Since it seems, judging by the number of angels currently doing the jitterbug on a mere footnote of this article, that we have some spare attention from quite a few prolific Shakespearean editors, I'll be bold enough to note that WikiProject Shakespeare is always in need of more hands; and, in particular, we have an automatically updated Cleanup Listing of tasks for articles that fall within the scope of the project. The latter has quite a lot of simple fixes (a single cn tag, for instance) in various high-priority articles (for instance, Hamlet, a featured article, is tagged with a citation needed flag; and Samuel Johnson has a dead external link) where a little bit of attention from an interested editor could do a lot of good with relatively little effort.
The current collaboration for the project is The Tempest, which is in need of more hands to bring it to Featured Article status (there's even a tentative todo list for it).
Just thought I'd, you know, mention it in case anyone was interested... :-) -- Xover ( talk) 14:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
[this thread refers to previous discussions archived at Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive 18] -- Xover ( talk) 14:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the various “…cowritten by…” type footnotes, I see they're only used in the list of plays. The relevant plays, being probable collaborations, are also marked with a † to indicate that they're collaborations. And just to make absolutely sure we cover our bases, several of them are also marked with a * to indicate they're romances. So for a bunch of these plays the name is followed by “…*†[x]”.
I think I may have suggested this before, but I really don't think we need to specify the various theories on collaborations in this article at all, and certainly not crammed into the list of plays. My suggestion would be to just get rid of all these footnotes and, if anything, cover that material over in
Shakespeare's plays somewhere.
If we absolutely must have all the possible collaborations in this article, I think it would be much preferable to add a full section on it (yes, even considering our space constraints) and maybe a main article link over to
Shakespeare's collaborations (which, trust me, can stand a lot more material; it's almost a stub!) or something.
Thoughts? --
Xover (
talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
My suggestions:
The idea of collaboration wasn't originated by critics. The title page of the 1st edition of 2NK described it as by Fletcher & Shakespeare. I don't think there were any critics before then (1632, was it?) who suggested it.
May I remind people yet again that there are many different degrees of collaboration, ranging from Macbeth, nearly all by WS, to More, nearly all not by him. Any phrasing as vague as those suggested above doesn't take account of this. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the first is better, but I suggest it be modified like so: "His surviving works, including some collaborations, consist of 38 plays,[c] 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems." That leaves room for those collaborations outside the canonical 38, such as STM and who knows what else. I take it all the collaboration notes will then be deleted. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, no "long concluded," whether it be by critics or scholars. It reminds me of grading all those freshman papers while chewing tinfoil. And let's reach a consensus on what we're doing before deciding on the wording. I'm OK with it either way, but I lean toward cutting instead of rearranging. Thoughts from other editors? Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[this thread refers to previous discussions archived at Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive 18] -- Xover ( talk) 14:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
As a response to the criticism that the four periods are too neat, I've removed the first paragraph of this section (see below). This was originally added in response to a specific request at FAC that the section have an overview to introduce it. As such it has no content separate from that which follows and is therefore dispensable.
Scholars have often noted four periods in Shakespeare's writing career.<ref>{{Harvnb|Dowden|1881|loc=48–9}}</ref> It is widely believed that until the mid-1590s, he wrote mainly comedies influenced by Roman and Italian models and history plays in the popular chronicle tradition. His second period began in about 1595 with the tragedy Romeo and Juliet and ended with the tragedy of Julius Caesar in 1599. During this time, he wrote what are considered his greatest comedies and histories. From about 1600 to about 1608, his "tragic period", Shakespeare wrote mostly tragedies, and from about 1608 to 1613, mainly tragicomedies, also called romances.
As for the rest of the section, I would caution anyone who seeks to change it to bear in mind the danger of this information becoming listy. That would, in effect, make it more difficult to read. It's very tricky to cover all Shakespeare's plays in such a short space (to say the least), and to make it readable there have to be some generalising patterns and groupings. Obviously, it would suit those who don't believe Shakespeare wrote these plays to have the scholarly traditions on chronology and periods destabilised, but that in itself should not be the premise on which any revision of this section is attempted (if revision be thought necessary). qp10qp ( talk) 11:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
SVGs are preferred here on Wikipedia..they allow infinite resolution zooming in, with no loss of quality. They also have more crisper lies, allowing for a more clean image. The SVG I have provided is a trace of the original image, and is literally the same, just in a different format. I don't see the fuss of changing it. Connormah ( talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "(small) minority" claim is an interpretation of the survey that is unsourced. Not because the poll does (or does not) indicate that there are doubts about the authorship of the plays, but because interpretation of the survey results is not something we should be doing on wikipedia. In my opinion, the only acceptable way to include anything from this survey would be to say something like "six percent of the respondents answered yes to the question do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?", which, of course, is a non-starter. We should leave our scholarly hats and discussions about selection biases at home when editing wikipedia and drop any reference to the survey unless a reliably sourced interpretation of the survey can be found. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 12:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the Holderness reference from the authorship paragraph because I looked up the pages references given and could find nothing relevant to the material. If whoever added the note can produce the relevant material from that reference, feel free to revert. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)