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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
uh... i dont know if any of the other people that read this but have you ever noticed that the picture of shakespeare had a earing... is the picture real or did someone change it a bit... just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.145.239 ( talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
he was gay - the earring in the left ear
The Hampton Court Portrait traditionally said to be of Shakespeare, bearing the legend aetatis suae 34 (his age, 34) shows a sitter with an earing (or rather a conspicuous knotted lock) in the left ear. I would venture to suggest that this was probably an aristocratic style that would not have been common among the middle classes. Certainly, one reason the Hampton Court Portrait has never attained much currency in orthodox Shakespearean studies is that the sitter is clearly of aristocratic rank. The painting is reproduced by Ruth Loyd Miller in Vol. II of her 1975 *Shakespeare Identified*, p. 411. This is a matter that deserves further study and investigation. -- BenJonson ( talk) 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think he was just a pirate AND NOT SHAKESPEARE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 ( talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope nobody minds that I added Elizabeth I's name in with the other possible claimants. This was just an attempt to make that list more complete. (Although, I suppose I should have added the names of the Countess of Pembroke, Mary Queen of Scots, Anne Hathaway, Anne Whateley and the Countess of Rutland, too.) I had read it before in a couple places, but just used two specific references from my own library for proof that her name had been put forth in the past. I didn't think it would change the article and I certainly don't believe she wrote them myself! HaarFager ( talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What is it wrong you people here at Wikipedia? I went back in to make a minor edit to the above I had just added, (I forgot and left off the "I" behind Queen Elizabeth's title), and my edit had already been removed! Somebody named Smatprt said it was because she was never a major claimant. Nowhere in the line preceeding any of the claimants mentioned was there a point saying this was only the major candidates. As I remember it said "alternative candidates." Queen Elizabeth I has been proposed in the past as an alternative candidate. What is wrong with stating her name with the other proposed candidates? Don't you want this article to be comprehensive or do you just wish to include some facts but not all facts? HaarFager ( talk) 04:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above. Hassocks5489 ( talk) 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Modifications: This image of Shakespeare is The Chandos Portrait, the same painting in this article, but in a version more"current". This version, aesthetically speaking, it gives a clearer view of the Chandos. What do you think about this replacement?
Look the others two pictures alongside, in a version of the first cut. We will discuss? Fernandoalexgraca ( talk) 20:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This has probably been already discussed, but - well, I like the Chandos portrait, too, but should the lead picture be one that we aren't even sure is him? Carlo ( talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Chandos Portrait ( Image:Shakespeare.jpg) has been nominated for deletion in Commons since February. The discussion can be found here. Editors familiar with the subject and the image are welcome to join the discussion. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it not mentioned in this article that there are many feature-length film adaptions of Shakespeare's plays? According to the article Shakespeare on screen, there are over 420 of such films. – Ilse @ 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Have pity! Its one of the few pages where Hollywood doesnt interfere.
Are the two quotes included in the article, from the "stage" speech in As You Like It and the "summer's day" sonnet, really representative of Shakespeare's work? Both selections are misleading because they seem like cliches when taken out of context. In context, both lead to reversals. The "stage" speech is not about creative expression, it is about the morbidity and brevity of human existence; the "summer's day" reference is not about beauty but its rapid decline - the sonnet goes on to argue that poetry itself is the only real preserver of beauty. If these quotes are to be included, they should be longer - the entire sonnet, perhaps, and Jaques' entire speech. Seb144 ( talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
did you know that shakespeare was gay —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.109.143.194 (
talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Under the Plays heading, there are several errors regarding the plot of King Lear. The first is a judgment call, but I don't think King Lear's "tragic error" was "giving up his powers." His flaw was his rash banishment of Cordelia (and Kent). And how does this flaw trigger later scenes leading to the violence? I think that sentence is poorly written. Secondly, the Earl of Gloucester, not the Duke, is the character who is tortured and blinded. Thanks.
75.111.128.201 ( talk) 05:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Brandon
The difference here is between the words "tragic error" and "tragic flaw". Two very different things. The article as it stands is correct and no change is needed. Wrad ( talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Shakespeare's skill was "being a playwright" - and if he were alive now he would be a film director with "based on a story by...", "with specialist information provided by..." (and a few cases of funding provided in response to product placement, and inclusion of names, pet texts etc) and similar comment screens. This way everybody can be happy - the "Shakespeare done it" and the "Shakespeare was actually (insert person of choice)" arguments.
This talk page is long - can somebody "do" the archive. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody change it? I don't know how to do it and that green is ugly as hell. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Should a new heading be added highlighting how revered Shakespeare is? Towns in Ontario and Connecticut named Stratford both hold huge Shakespeare festivals, the former even houses a huge festival complex and has named its streets after his characters (not to mention the town named after him a few miles away). Movies and books have been written about him, and he is still the main focus in most high school and college English courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.136.175 ( talk) 08:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
How has the traditional birthdate of 23 April been proven incorrect? I still see it written thus in other encyclopedias. jeanne ( talk) 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
iv heard that shakespeare was gay ?? is it true???
.......not that theres anything wrong with being gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.143.194 ( talk) 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
He probably liked double-edged swords. I'm not saying he's a Venetian merchant or nothin'... Just that he was no Othello. Just saying he could admire a good Antonio and a birra falstaff. In the name of his minor plays why does it even matter?
I recently (ten minutes ago) typed in Shakespear and forgot to add the 'e' on the end of his popular culturally announced last name, Shakespeare. It lead me to recall learning that William actually used to spell his name in many different ways, see this article here for a more defined article: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html#2
This then made me make this post saying why should Shakespear link to Shakespeare? If the man himself once signed his last name as Shakespear, shouldn't people that search for Shakespear or William Shakespear link to an article about his life and not be redirected to William Shakespeare, the supposed correct spelling by those that assume ones name is classified by how many people believe that is how his name should be spelt? I believe all spellings of William Shakespeare's name should have their own seperate page that is constantly updated in unity instead of one simple page that is agreed upon by the masses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Putnum ( talk • contribs)
Spelling was often inconsistent in the period, so there is little significance in the various spellings. It makes more sense for alternative spellings to redirect to the main page. This is MUCH simpler.
have you noticed in his picture he has an earing! you can go look for you self! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.174.202 ( talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A few other people have earrings. I'd focus more on the whole superlative plays thing myself. But maybe I'll just spend the rest of my life wondering if he was gay. Because that's what Shakespeare would have liked us to think while reading those tragedies: "That is a nice earring?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 ( talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I see in the Speculations section that one of these theories gets a mention (Oxfordian) with a link to the page. Why? Are we here to give these fantasists publicity or state the real facts for the people? Who supports its deletion? Felsommerfeld ( talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Never heard such poppeycock! Issues should be open for debate at any time, not locked down because it's already been discussed. Seems to me the voting was politically motivated first time round, trying to cater for the minorities. Now let me ask you a direct question. When the inclusion of this gratuity was first mooted, how many of you opposed it? And if you opposed it, why did you relent? Because you cared about minority views? What has happened to academic standards here? This is an encyclopedia not a refuge for the under-represented. So I think this should be deleted but I'll not attempt to force my way. We Brits are known for fair play. I'd just like to know who wants to stand up for their real principles and vote this nonsense off the article. Felsommerfeld ( talk) 10:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Come on guys. Let me point out that this thread was started by a (self-admitted) sockpuppet for a vociferous Baconian that appears to have been set up either to discredit the “Stratfordian” point of view by taking an extremist position, or, as its sockpuppeteer intimated elsewhere, to merely cause chaos and discord among other editors regardless of their position on Authorship.
The small section on Authorship in this article was the result of a long and arduous process to reach a compromise all editors could live with, and several editors who are on record that they feel the whole “Authorship Question” is absurd have said that including mention of it, properly framed as it is, is at least acceptable. That some might wish that it was given a little more weight, and others that it was given a little less, is fair enough; but hardly a reason to get out the pitchfork and torches over. Agree to disagree for now, and let sleeping dogs lie?
I, again, propose we let this matter be for a while and cool off a bit (all of us, me included; there is no slight intended to anyone in that suggestion). If in a little while we still feel there is a problem with this small section (which has passed FAC, I'll remind you!) then lets bring it up while being studious to focus on the text and not the other editors. Discuss everything on the talk page first, suggest specific changes to the text with objective and reasoned rationale, and be willing to compromise. With a touch of humility and a happy helping of AGF there's no real reason why we can't discuss even this issue in a constructive way.
But let me also point out that the Shakespeare WikiProject currently has almost 600 articles within its scope, of which 269 are Stubs and 188 are Start class, that desperately need attention. We have 14 Top priority articles, of which only 2 are GA and 2 FA; and improving the remaining 12 to GA and FA would be a wonderfully productive use of everyone's time. There are a handfull of articles that have previously been nominated for GA and failed, for which we already have review comments that make them low-hanging fruit for promotion. We have yet to get the articles for even the most well known and important plays to FA standard! -- Xover ( talk) 07:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I oppose any change in the article. IMO any comprehensive general article about Shakespeare would have to mention the authorship controversy for the same reason the deer poaching story is included: simply because it is part of history and its existence is known by the general public. Whatever they want to do over at the Wiki authorship article is no business of mine, since fantasy is not my specialty. And I can testify that Smatprt is not a sockpuppet. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to this discussion, but I figured I would throw my hat in. After reading everything that has already been argued, I haven't found my answer: Why does it not state somewhere in the first summary (or even have a tag eat the top of the article) that it has been doubted by many notable writers and historians that the William Shakespeare credited for these works is not the person (or possibly persons) that wrote them. I have been researching it all week and I came to Wiki to see what it said on this article and I am amused that there is barley a 3 sentence mention of it at the bottom of the article. I think that the Shakespeare authorship question page should at least be linked in the first paragraph. Chexmix53 ( talk) 23:16, 5 August 2008 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
uh... i dont know if any of the other people that read this but have you ever noticed that the picture of shakespeare had a earing... is the picture real or did someone change it a bit... just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.145.239 ( talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
he was gay - the earring in the left ear
The Hampton Court Portrait traditionally said to be of Shakespeare, bearing the legend aetatis suae 34 (his age, 34) shows a sitter with an earing (or rather a conspicuous knotted lock) in the left ear. I would venture to suggest that this was probably an aristocratic style that would not have been common among the middle classes. Certainly, one reason the Hampton Court Portrait has never attained much currency in orthodox Shakespearean studies is that the sitter is clearly of aristocratic rank. The painting is reproduced by Ruth Loyd Miller in Vol. II of her 1975 *Shakespeare Identified*, p. 411. This is a matter that deserves further study and investigation. -- BenJonson ( talk) 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think he was just a pirate AND NOT SHAKESPEARE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 ( talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope nobody minds that I added Elizabeth I's name in with the other possible claimants. This was just an attempt to make that list more complete. (Although, I suppose I should have added the names of the Countess of Pembroke, Mary Queen of Scots, Anne Hathaway, Anne Whateley and the Countess of Rutland, too.) I had read it before in a couple places, but just used two specific references from my own library for proof that her name had been put forth in the past. I didn't think it would change the article and I certainly don't believe she wrote them myself! HaarFager ( talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What is it wrong you people here at Wikipedia? I went back in to make a minor edit to the above I had just added, (I forgot and left off the "I" behind Queen Elizabeth's title), and my edit had already been removed! Somebody named Smatprt said it was because she was never a major claimant. Nowhere in the line preceeding any of the claimants mentioned was there a point saying this was only the major candidates. As I remember it said "alternative candidates." Queen Elizabeth I has been proposed in the past as an alternative candidate. What is wrong with stating her name with the other proposed candidates? Don't you want this article to be comprehensive or do you just wish to include some facts but not all facts? HaarFager ( talk) 04:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above. Hassocks5489 ( talk) 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Modifications: This image of Shakespeare is The Chandos Portrait, the same painting in this article, but in a version more"current". This version, aesthetically speaking, it gives a clearer view of the Chandos. What do you think about this replacement?
Look the others two pictures alongside, in a version of the first cut. We will discuss? Fernandoalexgraca ( talk) 20:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This has probably been already discussed, but - well, I like the Chandos portrait, too, but should the lead picture be one that we aren't even sure is him? Carlo ( talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Chandos Portrait ( Image:Shakespeare.jpg) has been nominated for deletion in Commons since February. The discussion can be found here. Editors familiar with the subject and the image are welcome to join the discussion. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it not mentioned in this article that there are many feature-length film adaptions of Shakespeare's plays? According to the article Shakespeare on screen, there are over 420 of such films. – Ilse @ 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Have pity! Its one of the few pages where Hollywood doesnt interfere.
Are the two quotes included in the article, from the "stage" speech in As You Like It and the "summer's day" sonnet, really representative of Shakespeare's work? Both selections are misleading because they seem like cliches when taken out of context. In context, both lead to reversals. The "stage" speech is not about creative expression, it is about the morbidity and brevity of human existence; the "summer's day" reference is not about beauty but its rapid decline - the sonnet goes on to argue that poetry itself is the only real preserver of beauty. If these quotes are to be included, they should be longer - the entire sonnet, perhaps, and Jaques' entire speech. Seb144 ( talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
did you know that shakespeare was gay —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.109.143.194 (
talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Under the Plays heading, there are several errors regarding the plot of King Lear. The first is a judgment call, but I don't think King Lear's "tragic error" was "giving up his powers." His flaw was his rash banishment of Cordelia (and Kent). And how does this flaw trigger later scenes leading to the violence? I think that sentence is poorly written. Secondly, the Earl of Gloucester, not the Duke, is the character who is tortured and blinded. Thanks.
75.111.128.201 ( talk) 05:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Brandon
The difference here is between the words "tragic error" and "tragic flaw". Two very different things. The article as it stands is correct and no change is needed. Wrad ( talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Shakespeare's skill was "being a playwright" - and if he were alive now he would be a film director with "based on a story by...", "with specialist information provided by..." (and a few cases of funding provided in response to product placement, and inclusion of names, pet texts etc) and similar comment screens. This way everybody can be happy - the "Shakespeare done it" and the "Shakespeare was actually (insert person of choice)" arguments.
This talk page is long - can somebody "do" the archive. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody change it? I don't know how to do it and that green is ugly as hell. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Should a new heading be added highlighting how revered Shakespeare is? Towns in Ontario and Connecticut named Stratford both hold huge Shakespeare festivals, the former even houses a huge festival complex and has named its streets after his characters (not to mention the town named after him a few miles away). Movies and books have been written about him, and he is still the main focus in most high school and college English courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.136.175 ( talk) 08:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
How has the traditional birthdate of 23 April been proven incorrect? I still see it written thus in other encyclopedias. jeanne ( talk) 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
iv heard that shakespeare was gay ?? is it true???
.......not that theres anything wrong with being gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.143.194 ( talk) 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
He probably liked double-edged swords. I'm not saying he's a Venetian merchant or nothin'... Just that he was no Othello. Just saying he could admire a good Antonio and a birra falstaff. In the name of his minor plays why does it even matter?
I recently (ten minutes ago) typed in Shakespear and forgot to add the 'e' on the end of his popular culturally announced last name, Shakespeare. It lead me to recall learning that William actually used to spell his name in many different ways, see this article here for a more defined article: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html#2
This then made me make this post saying why should Shakespear link to Shakespeare? If the man himself once signed his last name as Shakespear, shouldn't people that search for Shakespear or William Shakespear link to an article about his life and not be redirected to William Shakespeare, the supposed correct spelling by those that assume ones name is classified by how many people believe that is how his name should be spelt? I believe all spellings of William Shakespeare's name should have their own seperate page that is constantly updated in unity instead of one simple page that is agreed upon by the masses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Putnum ( talk • contribs)
Spelling was often inconsistent in the period, so there is little significance in the various spellings. It makes more sense for alternative spellings to redirect to the main page. This is MUCH simpler.
have you noticed in his picture he has an earing! you can go look for you self! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.174.202 ( talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A few other people have earrings. I'd focus more on the whole superlative plays thing myself. But maybe I'll just spend the rest of my life wondering if he was gay. Because that's what Shakespeare would have liked us to think while reading those tragedies: "That is a nice earring?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 ( talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I see in the Speculations section that one of these theories gets a mention (Oxfordian) with a link to the page. Why? Are we here to give these fantasists publicity or state the real facts for the people? Who supports its deletion? Felsommerfeld ( talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Never heard such poppeycock! Issues should be open for debate at any time, not locked down because it's already been discussed. Seems to me the voting was politically motivated first time round, trying to cater for the minorities. Now let me ask you a direct question. When the inclusion of this gratuity was first mooted, how many of you opposed it? And if you opposed it, why did you relent? Because you cared about minority views? What has happened to academic standards here? This is an encyclopedia not a refuge for the under-represented. So I think this should be deleted but I'll not attempt to force my way. We Brits are known for fair play. I'd just like to know who wants to stand up for their real principles and vote this nonsense off the article. Felsommerfeld ( talk) 10:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Come on guys. Let me point out that this thread was started by a (self-admitted) sockpuppet for a vociferous Baconian that appears to have been set up either to discredit the “Stratfordian” point of view by taking an extremist position, or, as its sockpuppeteer intimated elsewhere, to merely cause chaos and discord among other editors regardless of their position on Authorship.
The small section on Authorship in this article was the result of a long and arduous process to reach a compromise all editors could live with, and several editors who are on record that they feel the whole “Authorship Question” is absurd have said that including mention of it, properly framed as it is, is at least acceptable. That some might wish that it was given a little more weight, and others that it was given a little less, is fair enough; but hardly a reason to get out the pitchfork and torches over. Agree to disagree for now, and let sleeping dogs lie?
I, again, propose we let this matter be for a while and cool off a bit (all of us, me included; there is no slight intended to anyone in that suggestion). If in a little while we still feel there is a problem with this small section (which has passed FAC, I'll remind you!) then lets bring it up while being studious to focus on the text and not the other editors. Discuss everything on the talk page first, suggest specific changes to the text with objective and reasoned rationale, and be willing to compromise. With a touch of humility and a happy helping of AGF there's no real reason why we can't discuss even this issue in a constructive way.
But let me also point out that the Shakespeare WikiProject currently has almost 600 articles within its scope, of which 269 are Stubs and 188 are Start class, that desperately need attention. We have 14 Top priority articles, of which only 2 are GA and 2 FA; and improving the remaining 12 to GA and FA would be a wonderfully productive use of everyone's time. There are a handfull of articles that have previously been nominated for GA and failed, for which we already have review comments that make them low-hanging fruit for promotion. We have yet to get the articles for even the most well known and important plays to FA standard! -- Xover ( talk) 07:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I oppose any change in the article. IMO any comprehensive general article about Shakespeare would have to mention the authorship controversy for the same reason the deer poaching story is included: simply because it is part of history and its existence is known by the general public. Whatever they want to do over at the Wiki authorship article is no business of mine, since fantasy is not my specialty. And I can testify that Smatprt is not a sockpuppet. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to this discussion, but I figured I would throw my hat in. After reading everything that has already been argued, I haven't found my answer: Why does it not state somewhere in the first summary (or even have a tag eat the top of the article) that it has been doubted by many notable writers and historians that the William Shakespeare credited for these works is not the person (or possibly persons) that wrote them. I have been researching it all week and I came to Wiki to see what it said on this article and I am amused that there is barley a 3 sentence mention of it at the bottom of the article. I think that the Shakespeare authorship question page should at least be linked in the first paragraph. Chexmix53 ( talk) 23:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)