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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
Stephen, I only rewrote it to get it out of the passive voice and lose some prepositions. I don't really give a shit about it. If you want to keep the crappy style, that's quite OK with me. I'm not about to get in a big argument over your poor literary sense. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's up to you to delete an section that you asked to be started. It's not a personal attack to point out the truth: you have no sense of literary style, and rely instead on such subjective criteria as "choppy" and "flow." It was choppy before I rewrote it, because it was poorly written and constructed. How about if I deleted the entire section because it's not based in reality? That would be more reason than the excuses you gave for deleting this discussion section. But for some strange reason we're supposed to pretend that we respect a nutty point of view because a few people believe in it. (And believe me, pretending is all most of us do.) Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm deleting my response because this type of personal argument brings out the worst in me and inevitably I say things I regret. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The section on his sexuality is superfluous. As the paragraph itself says, there is no evidence of anything other than heterosexuality. Any homosexual interpretation is only speculative and is on the order of trivial musings. It does not rank with what is worthy of being the essential content of an encyclopedia article.
I love Shakespeare's work. He was an awsome wrighter but in Richard III he was totaly biest and one-sided. He had an old hunched man to play him. Personaly I think he did the whole play to make Elizabeth like him (Elizabeth hated Richard because of th wars of the roses) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.41.165 ( talk) 16:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
rember me from king john —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.34.156 ( talk) 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have removed what seems to be someone pushing a highly unorthodox theory about the authorship of Shakespeare's work. In the article the book/article/whatever claims to have been published on November 23rd of this year - two days ago - and has yet to be translated into English. I'm no wiki-wiz but even I can tell this is very strange. Anyone can undo my edit if they in good faith think this large addition to the authorship section deserves to be left in. Myrkkyhammas ( talk) 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the author, the brand-new study is based on new documents clearly and definitely supporting the Oxfordian theory. Therefore the removed paragraph is very important.
The paragraph should be reincluded in the article, perhaps in a condensed form. Wikiwiserick ( talk) 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Some publications by Walter Klier:
The Shakespeare Oxford Society says about Kreiler’s book:
Hanno Wember writes about the book and its author:
For further blogs about Kreiler’s new book, see [3] Wikiwiserick ( talk) 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Where it is printed 'earl of Southampton', the E of Earl should be capitalised. -
i hate shakespear —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.116.36.189 (
talk) 16:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Extra article is needed, some say he froze outside his home, was unable to get in or that he was on drinking binge day b4.
The inscription on his monument reads: AETATIS 53 DIE 23 AP. Since DIE means "day" - the inclusion of which would otherwise be superfluous since the date is given as well - it is clear that the proper translation of this phrase should be something like, "On the day of attaining his 53rd year." I.e., as we would say, his 52nd birthday. ðarkun coll 18:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm troubled that the second paragraph of the introduction makes reference to the conspiracy theorists who would have us believe that a significant "authorship question" actually exists. I would think the troubled imaginings of the anti-Stratfordians from their lunatic fringe warrant no place in the introduction, and only a glancing mention in the body of the piece. I think such references should be severely deprecated in the article.
The "Pyramids" entry presumably does not tarry over-long on(if it addresses at all) the theories that space aliens built the structures.
The only authorship question of any merit, or any interest to Shakespeare scholars, is the extent to which WS collaborated with others and on which plays.
I try to assume good faith and so forth, but that doesn't mean that the main entry on Shakespeare needs to be a forum for discredited and frankly goofball theories about his true identity.
This comment is from a fresh set of eyes: I have not partaken in any editing of the entry. With apologies to our friends from the Baconian or Oxfordian or Sidney err Sidneydian?--or whoever is the conspiracy hero of the moment--camps, I find myself discouraged that Wikipedia is used to give credence to poppycock and balderdash.
HedgeFundBob ( talk) 17:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
When an issue is addressed by scholars such as these (and actually supported by esteemed writers such as Whitman, James, Twain, not to mention at least 5 Supreme Court Justices, and notable individuals such as Sigmund Freud and William James), the attempt to completely censor the subject is more than unreasonable, it's ridiculous. IMHO, it is this kind of extreme obstinacy that is truly responsible for so much of the disruption on these pages. Smatprt ( talk) 18:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need Find-a-Grave and Free scores? For that matter, how many "open source" Shakespeare sites do we need? Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) There are two reasons. For one, some people have more trouble understanding different subjects then others. #2 If a child wants to study Shakespeare then they would need to study on a different level than an adult. Enc23 ( talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Through a recent article on the Chronicle of Higher Education website, I've found an interesting collection of essays updated quite frequently that may be a good addition to the External links area: http://www.studentpulse.com/topics/shakespeare -- I personally don't have permission to add it, but if anyone else agrees they might add it. ( 65.96.233.16 ( talk) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC))
It's getting past rational at this point the number of irrelevant entries on famous biographies speculating needlessly on historical figures sexual preferences. I let it pass in the Divinci entry because I though it might actually be historically significant, although there also it is highly speculative, but here there is just no need and it is completely irrelevance and unsubstantiated.
Wikipedia isn't a tool for political agendas. The use of it in this fashion threatens its reputation and it's usefulness. Don't vandalize these biographies for your own political ambitions.
Aside from that, there is a separate article, only God knows why, just on useless and highly dubious speculation on Shakespeare's sexuality.
That provides more than enough inaccurate speculation on Shakespeare's sexual preferences. You can annotate it in the footnotes if your so inclined.
Where should this stop? Should we start adding paragraphs on every biography as to speculating on the Jewishness of historical figures? Wasn't Christopher Columbus a secret Marano? Should we add entries on speculation of Masonic Membership? Abduction by space aliens? Should we speculate on everyones vegetarianism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That is a flat out lie AND besides the point. This is not mainstream at all. There is no reason to speculate why this married man with 3 children might have been, if you really twist the meaning of things, might have been bi-sexual in the minds of some very few political fanatics. STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE. There was NO evidence of him being bisexual other than pure speculation of a few sonnets , giving them alternate meaning and ignoring their obvious context, and it has no impact on his contribution. It sheds NO LIGHT or unique information about his biography. It does nothing to help describe any of his artistic achievements. Neither he nor any of his critics ever even discussed it when evaluating him. And even if there was, which there isn't, it is completely irreverent to his biography other than to a couple of Gay English Majors in Chelsea after drinking to much scotch,. It is just complete pure Bull SHIT. This isn't Truman Capote, or Walt Whitman.
Or maybe the fact that only MEN acted at the Globe, and they Cross Dressed... maybe that is proof that everything we know about Shakespeare needs to be turned around because he's Gay!
For god sakes..mainstream NOT
This is crap and it is politicization a simple biography.
http://www.jewishmag.com/115mag/shakespeare/shakespeare.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually a Female Jew and not a Male Bisexual at all!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/987681.html
Mrbrklyn ( talk) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15753311/Shakespeare-was-Jewish - peer reviewed proof that the Bard was Jewish
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15753311/Shakespeare-was-Jewish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea7bj5MsyAU&NR=1
Patrick is Gay based on this
Mrbrklyn ( talk) 02:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
I am not actually a member of this project, but have been watching the page because I did a GA review of Lady Macbeth. But I would like to point out that (a) the citations included in NotFromUtrecht's version cited above support only the contention that the sonnets refer to close friendship; there is no citation to support the contention that Shakespeare was homosexual (or that anyone actually thought so). And (b), the books that I looked at from the Google book search refered to by NotFromUtrecht all make the same statement: that speculation regarding Shakespeare's sexuality is unfounded and irrelevant, or politically motivated. Here is a quote from one (Shakespeare's queer children: sexual politics and contemporary culture By Kate Chedgzoy): "Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is not 'was Shakespeare gay?' but 'why do we care whether Shakespeare was gay?'" None of the books had any actual biographical evidence regarding Shakespeare's sexuality one way or another, that I could find. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 19:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ravappa is completely correct. There two questions. Is Shakespeare's sexual preferences of any important substance to his biography and is it based pm any substantial evidence that he was bisexual?
The answer to both is NO. The supposed serious work on the question, is by a PRO-GAY RIGHTS propaganda piece and doesn't even discuss Shakespeare in the specific but discussed how homoerotism and sexual roles might have been understood in Renaissance Europe. The text itself, and the late article on Shakespeares sexuality, which really should be removed from Wikipedia, both admit this. Meanwhile the facts are that he had three children, who he obviously dearly loved with his extensive use of their names and circumstances all thoughout his works, including aside from the obvious Hamlet, included almost every over work he did. He took care of his wife in a rather standard way for an upwardly mobile middle class social climber of the 1600's. The works quoted for his "bisexuality" are in standardized and recognized formats for the cultural context of the day and have near zero likelihood of reflecting anything of his own private passions. This same kind of femenemsization of the young Apostle in the Last Supper was used as a tool Leonardo's biography likewise as an excuse for adding a whole section on the possibility that Leonardo might have been Gay. At least in that case, Leonard was known to have lived with young men for decades, never married and never had children. But the primary thesis relating to the last supper was blown to pieces in peer reviewed surveys of the arts of that period. And the same thing here. Conclusively, any speculation of his being bi-sexual has no intellectual or substantial baring on the importance of Shakespeare to English civilization or his biography.
As if he was bisexual, really, who CARES. Even as unlikily as it is, it has no baring on his contributions and there is no more solid evidence for this than is Shakespeare is Jewish. In fact, after looking over the facts, he was more likely a Marano than Bisexual...BY FAR.
Finally, the addition of the section misleads readers as to the character of William Shakespeare, a key reason for any individual to come and read about Shakespeare on Wikipedia.
So that leaves only one question, to anyone who is intellectually honest. Why was this section ADDED to the Shakespeare biography, when it has no mainstream context, and is unimportant to understanding the man, and is infact probably misleading?
POLITICS. Wikipedia has become a war zone for special interests to push their agendas. Its undermining the reliability of the Encyclopedia as a source of information, and this is specifically against the stated Wikipedia bylaws and mission statements.
As such, the paragraph is vandalism of the Biography, and those who keep needlessly add it to the Shakespeare Biography not only give a misleading picture of the Bard of Statford, and are in violation of the Wikipedia bylaws.
Mrbrklyn ( talk) 04:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
If its not ALL politics than what is this about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo#Sexuality
Mrbrklyn ( talk) 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
Yes - you need to say more. You need to justify it under wikipedia rules. When you place inaccurate and misleading information into the entry, you have to then say MORE.
96.57.23.82 (
talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
Ah yes! The Ole, if you lose on the facts, sling some mud tactic http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm Mrbrklyn ( talk) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
I reverted an edit by Ash, who replaced "are" with "is" in the sentence, "After 1606–1607, Shakespeare wrote fewer plays, and none are attributed to him after 1613." Both "is" and "are" are correct to use with "none" following a plural noun referent, but "is" sounds jarring. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a nineteenth century spelling not in use today (citing OED). Wiktionary has preeminent. Suggest we go with the commonest current spelling: pre-eminent. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It is in use today, the New Yorker for example uses it. Since the article deals with The Bard himself, the world's most preëminent dramatist and writer in the English language, save none, I don't think there's much wrong with using it. The OED is itself often very prescriptive, and inter-wiki citing is generally not a good practice. Though your suggestion works too, I think there's nothing wrong with the status quo. Ktlynch ( talk) 15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
To make up for my flippant tone, which an American - god bless them - could never have; Gentlemen I give you precedence. Believe me, I am sincerely yours, Ktlynch ( talk) 13:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Seriously though, preëminent? This is the first and only time I've seen it spelled this way in my entire life. And yes, I read, often. Aren't you just trying to make some kind of point with this spelling? A kind of... 'look at me' point? -- taras ( talk) 21:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Since late December, I have been engaged in editing the Shakespeare authorship question page in an effort to bring some balance and accuracy, so that people who might be encountering the topic for the first time can read an accurate and neutral article instead of promotional propaganda. As you might guess, it is a Sisyphean task, but I believe I've made some progress. If anyone would like to pitch in, or just go by and see what has been done, please feel free to do so. At the current rate of progress, I estimate it will take a year or better to get the article in shape, but with more editors knowledgeable about Shakespeare it could be done more quickly. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a more neatly presented, and more accurately depicted, coat of arms in Shakespeare's life. I suggest, supported by the WP:SS and WP:UNDUE policies, that we don't need it here as well.-- Old Moonraker ( talk) 11:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Most editors here will be interested in this thread at the ANI board. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me correctly quote this? reference: My Crown is in my heart... not made of diamonds or jewels, nor to be seen by anyone.........
Many Thanks, Jeanelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.140.80 ( talk) 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of you might be interested in this discussion. Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Could anyone besides Cairnon and I comment on this exchange?
I personally feel that it is a mistake to "correct" the original spelling of Shakespeare's stone. Since we are directly quoting it, we should write it as it is written. The use of a 'y' in place of a thorn was widespread in early modern England. Modern scholars don't ever, in all the reading I've done, feel the need to replace Ys with thorns. Why should we? Wrad ( talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is wrong when it says that the date is not known because he was born on the same day he died...
People need to know this and not be dumb founded when they can not find an answer.
*site your source please.
"It will randomly work out" (
talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
According to the article he has 2 dates of birth - can someone change one back to "death" —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.34.73.120 (
talk) 18:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The current paragraph referring to this topic is not NPOV for several reasons. It belittles the theory with the last sentence, it gives added weight to the Oxford theory without explaining evidence for this weight (evidence is also not provided in the separate Wiki entry either), and the paragraph begins by implying that there were no doubts about authorship for the first 150 years. Proponents of the theory see doubts in all the actions of Shakespeare's colleagues, in Ben Jonson's eulogy, in the statue at Wilton House, etc. I'm adding the NPOV heading and hope to see discussion as to why my proposed paragraph was considered unacceptable. Jdkag ( talk) 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) --
Old Moonraker (
talk) 21:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Saying that there was no doubt for the first 150 years is as non-NPOV as it would be to start the article by saying that for 400 years researchers have been searching, generally unsuccessfully, for a literary trail connecting the Shakespeare of Stratford to the writing of the poetry and plays. The comment in the paragraph about "only a small minority of academics" is also non-NPOV unless you point out that this is the conclusion of a survey of English Literature professors. Look at the arguments raised at www.doubtaboutwill.org; they do not mention anything about "codes." The arguments raised in Mark Twain's book are simple and have not been adequately addressed in the 100 years since he wrote them. But this is not the place for us to convince each other of whether there is room for doubt or not, it is a place to discuss the proper way to summarize the topic. The paragraph needs to be rewritten so as not to belittle the Anti-Stratfordian position and to raise at least one reasonable argument made by the Anti-Stratfordians, so as to convey some sense of the issue.
By the way, after looking at the quotes at www.doubtaboutwill.org, I have to agree with Moonraker about Leslie and Dickens, and I've written to the site suggesting that they remove these names. The others all seem credible, and in place of Leslie and Dickens, a list of prominent figures could include Supreme Court Justices Stevens and O'Connor. In my own mind, the best argument is that no written manuscripts remain, indicating that someone wanted to hide their origins. But any reasonable argument would suffice to raise the summary paragraph to NPOV. Including the partial list of "proposed candidates" is not necessary unless it is to point out that referenced authors, such as Gibson, see them as being less credible than Shakespeare himself. (No candidate has yet been proposed convincingly, which is why there is still doubt.)
I personally would be interested in learning more and hope that the main article can be fixed up to be NPOV and to include good links. For example, the Stratfordian site shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html#5 lists three pieces of evidence connecting Shakespeare the actor to the works within his lifetime. These are: a reference to the playwright as a "fellow," perhaps of actors, in a 1601 student play in Cambridge; the John Davies poem, To our English Terence; and the citation in the Annales. If there are links to additional evidence, please let me know. Jdkag ( talk) 14:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion of authorship POV at
relates to whether or not to include the issue of authorship in the Shakespeare entry. Now that it is in, it should be made NPOV. There needn't be more than two or three sentences, but those sentences should not be sentences belittling the theory. That means putting one or two links to Anti-Stratfordian books and websites, in addition to the links to Stratfordian references. The doubt about Shakespeare authorship is not a fringe theory by Wiki standards and shouldn't be represented as such by emotional Stratfordians. I would also remove references to possible candidates, as this is also an emotional issue.
I think we should leave the POV heading until the three sentence summary can be made neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdkag ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Reversions explained: WS may have had a Catholic family background, but this isn't "ethnicity". Great Britain is an anachronism. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 10:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
yea ur right, but he belongs to a Catholic and as far i'm concern he remained to be a Catholic until his death.
And secondly removing nationality is utterly nonsense there is no denying that is indeed a British and he hasn't taken any other citizenship of a country.-- Kkm010 as© 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with you but the ? is we should come to a clear conclusion that what this persons nationality and ethnicity is, its too much confusion but still i want to put both confusing facts. and why you people stopped or refrain from discussion. Their should be a clear conclusion that what this writer ethnicity and nationality.-- Kkm010 as© 15:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Vandalising comments removed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I would like to suggest a website that has an extensive list of monologues and scenes from Shakespeare's works which can be useful to actors looking for material to work on or researchers. Monologues and scenes have a summary of the story leading to the scene, information on the type of monologue and location. I think what makes it interesting is also that the database can be searched by specific criteria, not only gender and type of monologue/scene but also by the number of characters (for scenes), emotions explored in the scene and main action. Here's the link:
http://www.actorama.com/monologues/scenes/shakespeare
Natkollar (
talk) 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for replying promptly to my posting. I respect your decision but I would like to make it clear that the website is not "promotional" and does not require registration. It would be great if you could provide a better reason or if you write that is promotional at least point out what it is promoting. The reason I thought it could be of interest is because it actually has one of the biggest databases of monologues from Shakespeare's works and the only searchable database of scenes. Also the website has been reviewed by two highly respected newsletters and research blogs, the Internet Scout Report and Researchbuzz.org, which consider it a useful resource:
http://www.researchbuzz.org/wp/database-of-monologues-and-scenes-from-films/
http://scout.wisc.edu/Archives/SPT--FullRecord.php?ResourceId=27810
Again, I respect your decision. Only it would be great if you could point out a better reason for not including it. Thank you Natkollar ( talk) 23:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
To Old Moonraker- I am not sure what "business network" gives away, a bit. The website is free and nothing is sold there. Membership is not a requirement. The fact that actors, directors, casting directors, producers, agents/managers use the site to network is one aspect of the website. Another is that it has one of the largest online resources of monologues and scenes, including Shakespeare. If you think is not a good resource, I accept that. Just curious about what "business network" gives away, a bit. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkollar ( talk • contribs) 07:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
In his The New Atlantis, he remarked that Jews “hate the name of Christ and have a secret and innate rancor against the people among whom they live.” He also disapproved of non-Jewish usurers as “Judaizers” who would wear “tawny bonnets” like Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.146.118 ( talk) 10:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You are referring to a work by Francis Bacon, not Shakespeare.-- 67.160.236.84 ( talk) 07:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Although I suspect topic fatigue has set in for many editors, it would be much appreciated if some would weigh in on this discussion about whether inserting the Shakespeare authorship question into Shakespeare's plays is a violation of WP:ONEWAY. The discussion preceding the current one has more information. Same actors, same topic, same arguments, but it would be nice to get this settled so we don't have to go through this on every article. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is being held here that would interest most Shakespeare editors. Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
William Shakespeare has also been given scrip writing credit on the 1st series
BBC
1980s
sitcom
Blackadder
Daveallen1983uk ( talk) 19:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I know most editors don’t think the Shakespeare authorship question deserves serious study, but I happen to agree with James Shapiro and Irvin Matus that ignoring it is tantamount to deserting the public, who very much believe that authorship is important and interesting. Sam Schoenbaum, Stanley Wells, Jonathan Bate, and a host of other Shakespeareans have thought it worthwhile to write about.
With the upcoming film Anonymous due to be released in 2011, I think it’s going to be important that a neutral, well-sourced Wikipedia authorship article is available for reference. Whether academics like it or not, Wikipedia is probably the first place people turn to for information on a topic. Whether what they find is accurate is up to us, those who are stricken with the compulsion to write and edit Wikipedia articles for no compensation whatsoever except for whatever intangible rewards we find in doing so, a motivation that is not always easy to explain.
The reason for all this rhetoric is to invite good editors to take a look at the Shakespeare authorship question article and go over it with a fine-toothed comb. Nishidani and I have been working on this version for quite some time now, and early this week an editor moved boldly and replaced the old, contentious article with ours. It surprised us both, because we thought we were months away from that point, and the article is still not complete (although it’s much better than the one it replaced). It’s now in the mainspace, and I think we have a historic opportunity to be the first team of editors to take a fringe article to FA status. By doing so we can stabilise the article and hopefully put behind us a long history of contention and ill-will.
We’re using all reliable sources and striving to keep a neutral point of view and avoid undue weight. Our goal is to just present the topic baldly, conforming to Wikipedia policies and guidelines with no editorialising or rebuttals. If you don’t wish to help edit the page, your comments on the talk page would be much appreciated, but the rewards will be great for those who join us (with apologies to Will and Ben):
Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that Smatprt has been topic banned, are there any Shakespeare editors that could pitch in to bring the SAQ article up to standards? Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
William Shakespears birth date is the same as his death date April 23. You should change that I didnt want to because your page requested not to
Jkled1 (
talk) 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I would have liked to see a larger section on how he influenced language by creating new words and phrases. Or is that a separate article somewhere? Dbjorck ( talk) 14:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I have asked for a peer review of the Shakespeare authorship question page here to get opinions on how the article can be improved before I take it for FA review. Please feel free to comment. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose to revert to the two actors who did the work: John Heminges and Henry Condell. Happy to have the two aristocrats (but with the iw links inserted correctly) mentioned, as noted in the edit summary. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 09:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The current article is dishonest, as its unity suggests the bard of London and the realtor of Avon are one person, even though that is not a court-proven fact. To the contrary, the unexpected bailing of JA suggests otherwise! ("to leak or not to leak, that is the question")
Therefore this article should be split into two articles: a., William Shake-speare (playwright) b., Will Shaksper (merchant-realtor)
Part a., should address the Bard as a spiritual being, free from any earthly references, so its contents stand, even if noble oxen ford the river to invade the scene. Part b., should address the (very little) solid info out there about a certain W. S., who lived in Stratford-upon-Avon. 87.97.101.198 ( talk) 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please split the article - after having read the book by Kurt Kreiler "Der Mann, der Shakespeare erfand: Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford", Insel Verlag, Francfort-on-the-Main and Leipzig 2009. But the book is in German.-- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 11:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have now no time to discuss with you at large, Peter cohen. However, you should be more respectful towards the Oxfordian theory. The people who adhere to it don´t represent anything like a primitive "Shakespeare isn't Shakespeare crowd" as you suggest. It is a very serious theory, by no means anything like a "fringe theory". You should get informed, there are so many sources, my dear. The book by Kurt Kreiler, printed in Germany 2009, is excellent scholarship, believe me. Please read also the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt about the Identity of William Shakespeare", and related information. Or do you want to say that men like Mark Rylance, Sir Derek Jacobi, Jeremy Irons and Michael York are part of "a crowd"? That they would support a theory of which they would not be convinced that it is the right one? Or the US justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O´Connor, Harry A. Blackmun, Antonin Scalia? Or Mark Twain, Henry James, Charlie Chaplin, Sigmund Freud, Georg Cantor, and many others? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 12:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, what madness is this?! the article should talk about his lost years. it should not in any way state as fact that the man was an actor in london, as we can only guess and do not know.
Guesswork is not fact. the prime article should not be locked and is incorrect of pure hard fact. it should read - he 'may' have been an actor, he 'may' have been a schoolmaster we do not know Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.39.67 ( talk) 12:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this section is cited to a website. I don't think this measures up to the standard of this article, however good the site may be, thoughts? Wrad ( talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The production of Shakespeare's sonnets was in some way influenced by the Italian sonnet: it was popularised by Dante and Petrarch and refined in Spain and France by Du Bellay and Ronsard, whom Shakespeare had probably read in translated versions. [2] The French and Italian poets gave preference to the Italian form of sonnet—two groups of four lines, or quatrains (always rhymed a-b-b-a-b-b-a) followed by two groups of three lines, or tercets (variously rhymed c-c-d e-e-d or c-c-d e-d-e)—which created a sonorous music in the rhyme-rich Romance languages, but strained the resources of English. To overcome this problem, Shakespeare chose to follow the idiomatic rhyme scheme used by Philip Sidney in his Astrophel and Stella (published posthumously in 1591), where the rhymes are interlaced in two pairs of couplets to make the quatrain. [3]
Nishidani ( talk) 11:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} I would like to add another bibliographical reference to this article, the following book by René Girard (1991): A Theatre of Envy: William Shakespeare. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195053397. The French translation, Shakespeare : les feux de l'envie, was published before the original English text. This book is often regarded as one of the most important essay written on Shakespeare, which has refreshened our views in the academic area. I think it deserves to be quoted in this article about Shakespeare. Thank you in advance. LelievreS ( talk) 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
From the beginning of the article: 'until the rise of Canadian born poet Brandon Stone, author of revolutionary works such as "Scions of Time".[1]'
That should probably be removed.
-- 94.192.178.219 ( talk) 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Shakespeare was born on the 23rd April
What's the justification, please, for moving Edward III from "Apocrypha" to "History"? This was an unsummarized change and there's only desultory mention, AFAICS, in the talk page archives. I suggest putting it back where it was. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 05:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Please edit Johannes Factotum as a link to wiki: Jack of all trades, master of none, as i cant edit i cant put the link in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.141.142.41 ( talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
trolling by blocked sockpuppeteer |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Twice the lexicon of William ShakespeareCláudio César Dias Baptista, in opus Géa, has twice the lexicon of William Shakespeare's whole opera. That information could be seen in the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista but was deleted, with nonsense allegations and the page was semi-locked. You can see proof about Shakespeare's lexicon in the enter "Léxicon" of the Dicionário Aurélio and in the own book that is mentioned in that enter. Of course you can also discover by yourself how many words William Shakespeare utilized in his whole opera and compare it with the vocabulary present in Géa! Then you will see the Truth by yourself.187.13.70.192 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.79.18 ( talk)
So, Old Moonraker, Dias has reached far beyond than William Shakespeare, because he surpassed him in vocabulary and also created a new language! Regards! 187.13.6.117 ( talk) 12:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC) To Paul Barlow: quantity is not a proof of quality, but is a very strong suggestion, mainly in the case of Cláudio César Dias Baptista's lexicon. When we just inform the number of words of his vocabulary, 30,000, people don't understand the importance of it - is the same as informing how many atoms you have in your body, but when we compare the lexicon of Dias Baptista and Shakespeare, people understand better that, at least, the book Géa should be read and that there is a Fact to be discovered. Regards! 187.13.6.117 ( talk) 12:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
BY:Ahmad Majed Adnan Hilal Saudi Arabia Gr.8 to 9 14 years old Born on January 25 1997 |
98.238.152.51 ( talk) 07:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)If you read the first paragraph about Wllm Shakespeare you will find before the chapter section that some wit has written "there is no point to learn shakespeare its just a waste of time" you don't have to look far, it's there right before the "contents" box. I tried to fix it but couldn't. Please someone, get rid of that if you can 98.238.152.51 ( talk) 07:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
98.238.152.51 ( talk) 07:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)If you read the first paragraph about Wllm Shakespeare you will find before the chapter section that some wit has written "there is no point to learn shakespeare its just a waste of time" you don't have to look far, it's there right before the "contents" box. I tried to fix it but couldn't. Please someone, get rid of that if you can 98.238.152.51 ( talk) 07:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"there is no point to learn shakespeare its just a waste of time", could someone please remove that? 93.125.198.182 ( talk) 11:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
he actually got married to Ann Hathaway who was 26 and pregnant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.32.98 ( talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Henri328 (
talk) 18:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
William Shakespeare was born 23 April. The same day he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.206.239 ( talk) 21:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a question on the sourcing: do the three authors cited (Greenblatt, Bevington, Wells) individually support the statement, or is the statement a (perhaps reasonable) synthesis based on 'three' being considered to be 'wide'? Uniplex ( talk) 16:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It is instructive to take the trouble to read what the sentence actually says. It doesn't claim that Shakespeare is the world's greatest writer; it says "... widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist." Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
H.L. Mencken was the greatest writer in the English language; everyone knows that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanshusband ( talk • contribs)
Re: "Obviously I mean JS Bach, that's who people mean when they say "Bach". This is pointless pedantry, since you miss the point that I am talking about eveluation now, not during the lifetime of the individuals concerned. "
During C.P.E.'s lifetime when people said "Bach", they meant C.P.E. Bach, and the "pointless pedantry" is yours (as is the temporal equivocation)--yet your analogy is simply perpetuating a musically uninformed popular misconception. Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious that the "widely regarded" qualification is there only because you know can't get away with an unqualified "greatest". I am arguing that the article doesn't need to say "greatest" in any way, shape, or form. TheScotch ( talk) 06:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
For example, Johannes factotum, in the way I just linked it here? Not everyone will understand these phrases and after all, isn't that why we have Wikipedia? I have edit permissions, but I would prefer it if someone agreed with me before it's changed. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The article refers to a Royal Patent, but searching wikipedia brings up Letters Patent instead. So which is correct? In either case, shouldn't the term be linked to the appropriate article? I'll leave it to people who are more versed on the topic to decide, but I thought it should be mentioned and discussed. 71.134.237.3 ( talk) 07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section about plays, would it be appropriate to add this media as an example performance? Pine talk 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't think so. It would open the gate to the article being packed with hundreds of these. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Pine talk 07:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is currently vandalism on the wikipedia page for William shakespear in the first line. I would like to be able to fix this vandalism. BCthroughNL ( talk) 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The text mentions that "Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution" [9] which I thought was ambiguous and subjective (how much is "small"), so I replaced it with what I felt was a more accurate sentence reflected by the source. However, the sentence is restored on the grounds that "the source is misleading". In which case:
A man for whom 1 pound is 6% of his total weight would weigh about 17 pounds... Wrad ( talk) 02:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we should add more discussion on the authorship dispute. Will Shakspere of Stratford could barely write his name. He did not speak English of the variety understood in London, and he left school at 14. He was a drifter, a fugitive, and a greedy land-grabber. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at the facts that Will Shakspere did not write these plays, that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym, and that we've been honoring the wrong person for 400 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.1.93 ( talk) 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
In 1600 there was a consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth. I'm not sure we should always go with the consensus. It might also be noted that this "consensus" you constantly talk about is not really a consensus. It's a manufactured "consensus." Plenty of Shakespeare scholars do not agree with it. What is the proper place to discuss these things in detail? If you go into other articles on the authorship question, these issues are deleted off the discussion page, and changes made to the article are deleted. No one by the name of "William Shakespeare" wrote these plays. Will Shakspere did not write them, either. Most likely most of the writing was done by Edward de Vere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanshusband ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Surely Galileo could have published his ideas in the discussion section. You would allow that, wouldn't you? Where exactly should a present-day Galileo speak out, if the consensus favors suppressing his view? There is a conspiracy among Shakespeare professors, most of them anyway, to bury the Oxfordian authorship theory. They will not even discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanshusband ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Who decides what the "best reliable sources" are? What is reliable? What is good? You're just using self-reinforcing criteria to perpetuate a viewpoint you have no desire to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MillardFillimore ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all my appology for posting this at the bottom without a headline. Please disregard that posting if it shows up on the "saved page". Regarding my recent edit to Wikipedia, William Shakespeare, Early life (second paragraph) which was undone by Reedy: Original text: “Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the curriculum was dictated by law throughout England, and the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics.” Text as edited by me: “Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, however the school would have provided a substantial education in Latin grammar and some exposure to the classics.” Noting that Wikipedia policy is “verifiability, not truth”, and that “secondary sources” are preferred over “primary sources”, I point out, nevertheless, that the primary sources (that is the government “statutes” or Royal Injunctions) that Baldwin and Cressy rely on, do not prescribe anything remotely approaching a standardize curriculum of literary “classical” texts. To be absolutely clear, the relevant Royal statutes and injunctions, which are wonderfully brief, make no provision with regard to specific literary texts. And, to clarify what may be an underlying source of confusion, the term “statute” or “statutes”, as it appears in Baldwin in reference to curriculum, always refers to statutes for individual schools (such as Eaton or Westminster), that is, internal statutes and not Royal or Government “statutes” applicable “throughout England”. However, since, as matter of Wikipedia policy, the issue here is “not truth”, but “verifiability”, the challenge I present to Mr. Reedy is to verify, from Baldwin, the claim that: “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”. I believe that the closest Baldwin comes to such a claim is his own claim of “essential uniformity”, which (putting aside the questionable nature of that claim) can hardly be equated to, “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”. Therefore, unless I have missed something, if Baldwin is to be used accurately, the statement “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”, is not verifiable by that source. Nor, by the way, is it verifiable by Cressy. With regard to the second claim that the Stratford grammar school would have “provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics”: that would indeed coincide with Baldwin’s opinions and statements (as I read Baldwin), though, clearly, without a “curriculum...dictated by law”, such statements stand exposed as conjecture. Ssteinburg ( talk) 12:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Baldwin does not use that exact phraseology. Here are the relevant extracts:
A royal command during this period was just that: dictated by law, the King being the ultimate authority, and objecting to the exact wording is merely quibbling. As to your objection, "The royal injunctions quoted there apply to grammar, not to literary texts", you do know we're talking about a grammar school, don't you? Exactly what do you think a grammar school of the time taught? There is a reason it was called a grammar school. If you read Baldwin, you will learn that the students did grammar exercises by translating the classics, such as Terence and Ovid, the very same authors that were major sources for Shakespeare. In short, the sentence you object to is an accurate summation of Baldwin as it reads, but if you believe that changing "dictated by law" to "standardised by royal decree" is warranted, I would have no objections.
As to Groatsworth, this article, as per Wikipedia policy, reflects the current scholarly consensus. When the consensus changes, the article will follow suit. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
In response to your “aside”, you seem to be saying that those who disagree with you should not bother. Why not go ahead and post a notice, lock the article down, and stop all discussion with outside editors? Who cares about the “five pillars”? And, as an aside, if this work tires you, maybe you should take a break. Ssteinburg ( talk) 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I finally accessed the edition of Cressy that is cited in the article. The relevant citations are under the headings "Royal Injunctions, 1559" and "Canons of 1571", pp. 28-9. The first reads "Elizabeth inherited Cardinal Poles's procedures for examining schoolmasters and developed them into a national system of control," and then quotes a section of the injunction: "Item, that every schoolmaster and teacher shall teach the grammar set forth by king Henry VIII of noble memory and continued in the time of king Edward VI and none other...." The second reads "The control of schoolmasters was strengthened in 1571 .... The church canons of that year set forth the prerequisites for the grant of a teacher's license and elaborated the formal duties of schoolmasters," and also quotes part of those canons: "... Schoolmasters shall teach no grammar but only that which the Queen's Majesty hath commanded to be read in all schools throughout the whole realm...."
I erred above in stating that math was not taught. According to S.J. Curtis' History of Education in England (1953), arithmetic was taught to the younger students in the first two forms by the usher (pp. 89-90), and "History and geography were taught incidentally in connection with the authors read," as well as "a little geometry and astronomy to the higher forms" (90). They did not, however, teach reading or writing. Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm tired of going round and round about this. Early on I offered to change the statement to "standardised by royal decree", and you later said you would be satisfied with "grammar curriculum". How about we merge the two and rewrite the sentence to read " Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the grammar curriculum was standardised by royal decree throughout England, and the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics."
If you don't agree, take it to dispute resolution, because I'm done with this. Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
williaum shakespare
http://www.bollywoodmantra.com/video/shakespeare-siciliano-2-messina-famiglia-florio-di-palermo-michele-angelo-crollalanza/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.33.180.107 ( talk • contribs)
Macbeth has a dagger after it, indicating that the play was only partially written by WS. I could find nothing to support this in the Wik/macbeth article. Kdammers ( talk) 09:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Shakespeare Festival 2012, every play of the author is going to be staged in different languages. It says that there's going to be 37 plays. So Shakespeare had 37 plays not 38.
Ahdiker ( talk) 08:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Tonight at 9pm UK time and at the same time for the next two weeks, Shapiro presents three programmes entitled "The King & the Playwright: A Jacobean History". The episodes are entitled "Incertainties" [what sort of word is that?], "Equivocations" and, uh, they aren't saying what the third is called. Here's the bumf and a clip, together with repeat times. For those who can't get BBC4, the episodes will probably each be available via the BBC iPlayer for a week. -- Guillaume Tell 16:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to elaborate. The old, and suggested new text, is:
By 1604, he had moved north of the river again, to an area north of St Paul's Cathedral with many fine houses. There he rented rooms from a French Huguenot named Christopher Mountjoy, a maker of ladies' wigs and other headgear
By 1604, he was north of the river again. This was in an area with many fine houses known as Cripplegate, which adjoined the gateway of that name in the city wall. There he lived, essentially as a lodger, in the probably quite large house cum workshop that accommodated the family, apprentices and servants of Christopher Mountjoy,a French Huguenot maker of decorative ladies' headgear. Various writers and actors lived in and around this area, including two of Shakespeare's closest colleagues in the King's Men - John Heminges and Henry Condell, the future editors of the First Folio. 92.8.175.248 ( talk) 09:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
i think you should add a game quiz after the article and put it so it can be fun for the people after they read — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.229.228 ( talk) 13:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I am little confused; at info box; occupation says Playwright, what does it mean ? Or does it should be simply Play writer ? regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 23:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
his birth date is 23 april 1564. You can search it from google.
117.203.132.45 ( talk) 14:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done: this has been requested many times before. See here, and a few other places on that page, for the explanation.-- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The Folger Shakespeare Library wants to upload their collection of images, many (or most) which are documents. See the images here. If you are able to do so, please get in touch with User:Kaldari. Thanks! SarahStierch ( talk) 17:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised to realise we have no dedicated article about the translations of Shakespeare's works into other languages.
My interest was peaked piqued by reading in
Maciej Słomczyński the claim that he was "the only person in the world to translate all the works of William Shakespeare". It's a huge claim, and desperately in need of a citation, which I've now called for.
Then, I got to thinking about this. There are legions of Shakespeare translations, into German, French, Russian, Spanish, Italian and all the rest, and many of them were done by very notable people, but most would have been piecemeal translations of individual plays etc. For example, I know Boris Pasternak did a Russian translation of Hamlet and maybe a few other plays (*), but no more. I also have in my library a Russian translation of all 154 Sonnets, by Samuil Marshak, but I'm not aware he ever tackled the plays, and our article makes no such claim. I can't think of anyone who is known for having translated Shakespeare's entire oeuvre into another language, unless the Słomczyński claim can be verified.
I assume there are publications of Shakespeare Collected Works translated into any other language one cares to name, but is any of these publications the work of a single translator?
Where would one start on gathering together material for an article dealing with the various translations of Shakespeare? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
A footnote refers to "September 1769, when the actor David Garrick organised a week-long carnival at Stratford to mark the town council awarding him the freedom of the town", which is cited from a book by Ian Mcintyre called Garrick (1999). In the 18th century there were no town councils, I suppose what is meant is the Corporation of the borough, which perhaps made Garrick a freeman. Can someone with the resources needed please try to fathom this? Moonraker ( talk) 21:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, what does 'glover' mean? It is written in the first sentence here.-- Sogenius ( talk) 14:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to add the following link to Shakespeare's Monologues in the external resources.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanlemke ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Another possible author, as well as De Vere etc., is Henry Neville — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.59.166 ( talk) 22:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There has been more than one attempt to introduce the factoid that a new study has "discovered" that Shakespeare was prosecuted for grain hoarding in 1598. In fact this has been known for decades (indeed, for over a century, since it is mentioned by Sidney Lee). It is, IMO, not appropriate to glue on material about every speculation coming from scholars that happens to take the fancy of the mainstream press, but this is ancient news. IMO the topic would be appropriate for the Shakespeare's life article, but not here. Just type the words "Shakespeare grain hoarding" into Google Books to see how many hundreds of books have discussed this over the last half century [13]. Try it with "Shakespeare tax" too [14]. So I don't think we should be "crediting" Aberystwyth University with this non-discovery. Even the connection to Coriolanus is old news. See many of the readily available discussions of the issue. [15] [16] [17]. In other words, editors have always had this material available should they have chosen to include it, so it should not be added as a new discovery, but rather discussed whether it is appropriate at all for the main article. Paul B ( talk) 13:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
BTW, Jonathan Bate says of this "discovery" that the authors have "given new force to an old argument about the contemporaneity of the protests over grain-hoarding in 'Coriolanus." [my italics] Paul B ( talk) 13:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
he died on the same day on his birthday no actually knows when his birthday was through the only one who knew was shakespear him self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.166.222 ( talk) 14:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I had to get two numbers from further down in the article, subtract one from the other, and bring the number (24 years) back up to the summary of his works to get a taste of how quick Bill was shelling this stuff out. I'd like to suggest a 3 word addition in the intro paragraph, shown in bold below...
William Shakespeare (26 April 1564 (baptised) – 23 April 1616)[nb 1] was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.[1] He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon".[2][nb 2] His extant works over 24 years, including some collaborations, consist of about 38 plays,[nb 3] 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, two epitaphs on a man named John Combe, one epitaph on Elias James, and several other poems. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.[3]
Pb8bije6a7b6a3w ( talk) 05:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Most sources agree that William Shakespeare was born on April 23, not the 26th as the site currently states. Please change his date of birth from April 25, 1564 to April 23, 1564. 24.218.81.41 ( talk) 04:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi,
I had searched for the day Shakespeare was born and all the other sources on internet indicate that he was born on April 23 and not April 26 as stated on Wikipedia. I found this consistently on both www.google.com and www.bing.com. I would like to request you to do some more research to see which of the two dates is correct.
Thank you
Madhuvasu (
talk) 18:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Just saw that this has already been addressed. Sorry for the repetition! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhuvasu ( talk • contribs) 23 April 2013
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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
Stephen, I only rewrote it to get it out of the passive voice and lose some prepositions. I don't really give a shit about it. If you want to keep the crappy style, that's quite OK with me. I'm not about to get in a big argument over your poor literary sense. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's up to you to delete an section that you asked to be started. It's not a personal attack to point out the truth: you have no sense of literary style, and rely instead on such subjective criteria as "choppy" and "flow." It was choppy before I rewrote it, because it was poorly written and constructed. How about if I deleted the entire section because it's not based in reality? That would be more reason than the excuses you gave for deleting this discussion section. But for some strange reason we're supposed to pretend that we respect a nutty point of view because a few people believe in it. (And believe me, pretending is all most of us do.) Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm deleting my response because this type of personal argument brings out the worst in me and inevitably I say things I regret. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The section on his sexuality is superfluous. As the paragraph itself says, there is no evidence of anything other than heterosexuality. Any homosexual interpretation is only speculative and is on the order of trivial musings. It does not rank with what is worthy of being the essential content of an encyclopedia article.
I love Shakespeare's work. He was an awsome wrighter but in Richard III he was totaly biest and one-sided. He had an old hunched man to play him. Personaly I think he did the whole play to make Elizabeth like him (Elizabeth hated Richard because of th wars of the roses) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.41.165 ( talk) 16:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
rember me from king john —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.34.156 ( talk) 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have removed what seems to be someone pushing a highly unorthodox theory about the authorship of Shakespeare's work. In the article the book/article/whatever claims to have been published on November 23rd of this year - two days ago - and has yet to be translated into English. I'm no wiki-wiz but even I can tell this is very strange. Anyone can undo my edit if they in good faith think this large addition to the authorship section deserves to be left in. Myrkkyhammas ( talk) 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the author, the brand-new study is based on new documents clearly and definitely supporting the Oxfordian theory. Therefore the removed paragraph is very important.
The paragraph should be reincluded in the article, perhaps in a condensed form. Wikiwiserick ( talk) 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Some publications by Walter Klier:
The Shakespeare Oxford Society says about Kreiler’s book:
Hanno Wember writes about the book and its author:
For further blogs about Kreiler’s new book, see [3] Wikiwiserick ( talk) 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Where it is printed 'earl of Southampton', the E of Earl should be capitalised. -
i hate shakespear —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.116.36.189 (
talk) 16:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Extra article is needed, some say he froze outside his home, was unable to get in or that he was on drinking binge day b4.
The inscription on his monument reads: AETATIS 53 DIE 23 AP. Since DIE means "day" - the inclusion of which would otherwise be superfluous since the date is given as well - it is clear that the proper translation of this phrase should be something like, "On the day of attaining his 53rd year." I.e., as we would say, his 52nd birthday. ðarkun coll 18:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm troubled that the second paragraph of the introduction makes reference to the conspiracy theorists who would have us believe that a significant "authorship question" actually exists. I would think the troubled imaginings of the anti-Stratfordians from their lunatic fringe warrant no place in the introduction, and only a glancing mention in the body of the piece. I think such references should be severely deprecated in the article.
The "Pyramids" entry presumably does not tarry over-long on(if it addresses at all) the theories that space aliens built the structures.
The only authorship question of any merit, or any interest to Shakespeare scholars, is the extent to which WS collaborated with others and on which plays.
I try to assume good faith and so forth, but that doesn't mean that the main entry on Shakespeare needs to be a forum for discredited and frankly goofball theories about his true identity.
This comment is from a fresh set of eyes: I have not partaken in any editing of the entry. With apologies to our friends from the Baconian or Oxfordian or Sidney err Sidneydian?--or whoever is the conspiracy hero of the moment--camps, I find myself discouraged that Wikipedia is used to give credence to poppycock and balderdash.
HedgeFundBob ( talk) 17:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
When an issue is addressed by scholars such as these (and actually supported by esteemed writers such as Whitman, James, Twain, not to mention at least 5 Supreme Court Justices, and notable individuals such as Sigmund Freud and William James), the attempt to completely censor the subject is more than unreasonable, it's ridiculous. IMHO, it is this kind of extreme obstinacy that is truly responsible for so much of the disruption on these pages. Smatprt ( talk) 18:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need Find-a-Grave and Free scores? For that matter, how many "open source" Shakespeare sites do we need? Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) There are two reasons. For one, some people have more trouble understanding different subjects then others. #2 If a child wants to study Shakespeare then they would need to study on a different level than an adult. Enc23 ( talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Through a recent article on the Chronicle of Higher Education website, I've found an interesting collection of essays updated quite frequently that may be a good addition to the External links area: http://www.studentpulse.com/topics/shakespeare -- I personally don't have permission to add it, but if anyone else agrees they might add it. ( 65.96.233.16 ( talk) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC))
It's getting past rational at this point the number of irrelevant entries on famous biographies speculating needlessly on historical figures sexual preferences. I let it pass in the Divinci entry because I though it might actually be historically significant, although there also it is highly speculative, but here there is just no need and it is completely irrelevance and unsubstantiated.
Wikipedia isn't a tool for political agendas. The use of it in this fashion threatens its reputation and it's usefulness. Don't vandalize these biographies for your own political ambitions.
Aside from that, there is a separate article, only God knows why, just on useless and highly dubious speculation on Shakespeare's sexuality.
That provides more than enough inaccurate speculation on Shakespeare's sexual preferences. You can annotate it in the footnotes if your so inclined.
Where should this stop? Should we start adding paragraphs on every biography as to speculating on the Jewishness of historical figures? Wasn't Christopher Columbus a secret Marano? Should we add entries on speculation of Masonic Membership? Abduction by space aliens? Should we speculate on everyones vegetarianism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That is a flat out lie AND besides the point. This is not mainstream at all. There is no reason to speculate why this married man with 3 children might have been, if you really twist the meaning of things, might have been bi-sexual in the minds of some very few political fanatics. STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE. There was NO evidence of him being bisexual other than pure speculation of a few sonnets , giving them alternate meaning and ignoring their obvious context, and it has no impact on his contribution. It sheds NO LIGHT or unique information about his biography. It does nothing to help describe any of his artistic achievements. Neither he nor any of his critics ever even discussed it when evaluating him. And even if there was, which there isn't, it is completely irreverent to his biography other than to a couple of Gay English Majors in Chelsea after drinking to much scotch,. It is just complete pure Bull SHIT. This isn't Truman Capote, or Walt Whitman.
Or maybe the fact that only MEN acted at the Globe, and they Cross Dressed... maybe that is proof that everything we know about Shakespeare needs to be turned around because he's Gay!
For god sakes..mainstream NOT
This is crap and it is politicization a simple biography.
http://www.jewishmag.com/115mag/shakespeare/shakespeare.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually a Female Jew and not a Male Bisexual at all!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/987681.html
Mrbrklyn ( talk) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15753311/Shakespeare-was-Jewish - peer reviewed proof that the Bard was Jewish
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15753311/Shakespeare-was-Jewish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea7bj5MsyAU&NR=1
Patrick is Gay based on this
Mrbrklyn ( talk) 02:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
I am not actually a member of this project, but have been watching the page because I did a GA review of Lady Macbeth. But I would like to point out that (a) the citations included in NotFromUtrecht's version cited above support only the contention that the sonnets refer to close friendship; there is no citation to support the contention that Shakespeare was homosexual (or that anyone actually thought so). And (b), the books that I looked at from the Google book search refered to by NotFromUtrecht all make the same statement: that speculation regarding Shakespeare's sexuality is unfounded and irrelevant, or politically motivated. Here is a quote from one (Shakespeare's queer children: sexual politics and contemporary culture By Kate Chedgzoy): "Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is not 'was Shakespeare gay?' but 'why do we care whether Shakespeare was gay?'" None of the books had any actual biographical evidence regarding Shakespeare's sexuality one way or another, that I could find. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 19:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ravappa is completely correct. There two questions. Is Shakespeare's sexual preferences of any important substance to his biography and is it based pm any substantial evidence that he was bisexual?
The answer to both is NO. The supposed serious work on the question, is by a PRO-GAY RIGHTS propaganda piece and doesn't even discuss Shakespeare in the specific but discussed how homoerotism and sexual roles might have been understood in Renaissance Europe. The text itself, and the late article on Shakespeares sexuality, which really should be removed from Wikipedia, both admit this. Meanwhile the facts are that he had three children, who he obviously dearly loved with his extensive use of their names and circumstances all thoughout his works, including aside from the obvious Hamlet, included almost every over work he did. He took care of his wife in a rather standard way for an upwardly mobile middle class social climber of the 1600's. The works quoted for his "bisexuality" are in standardized and recognized formats for the cultural context of the day and have near zero likelihood of reflecting anything of his own private passions. This same kind of femenemsization of the young Apostle in the Last Supper was used as a tool Leonardo's biography likewise as an excuse for adding a whole section on the possibility that Leonardo might have been Gay. At least in that case, Leonard was known to have lived with young men for decades, never married and never had children. But the primary thesis relating to the last supper was blown to pieces in peer reviewed surveys of the arts of that period. And the same thing here. Conclusively, any speculation of his being bi-sexual has no intellectual or substantial baring on the importance of Shakespeare to English civilization or his biography.
As if he was bisexual, really, who CARES. Even as unlikily as it is, it has no baring on his contributions and there is no more solid evidence for this than is Shakespeare is Jewish. In fact, after looking over the facts, he was more likely a Marano than Bisexual...BY FAR.
Finally, the addition of the section misleads readers as to the character of William Shakespeare, a key reason for any individual to come and read about Shakespeare on Wikipedia.
So that leaves only one question, to anyone who is intellectually honest. Why was this section ADDED to the Shakespeare biography, when it has no mainstream context, and is unimportant to understanding the man, and is infact probably misleading?
POLITICS. Wikipedia has become a war zone for special interests to push their agendas. Its undermining the reliability of the Encyclopedia as a source of information, and this is specifically against the stated Wikipedia bylaws and mission statements.
As such, the paragraph is vandalism of the Biography, and those who keep needlessly add it to the Shakespeare Biography not only give a misleading picture of the Bard of Statford, and are in violation of the Wikipedia bylaws.
Mrbrklyn ( talk) 04:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
If its not ALL politics than what is this about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo#Sexuality
Mrbrklyn ( talk) 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
Yes - you need to say more. You need to justify it under wikipedia rules. When you place inaccurate and misleading information into the entry, you have to then say MORE.
96.57.23.82 (
talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
Ah yes! The Ole, if you lose on the facts, sling some mud tactic http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm Mrbrklyn ( talk) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)mrbrklyn
I reverted an edit by Ash, who replaced "are" with "is" in the sentence, "After 1606–1607, Shakespeare wrote fewer plays, and none are attributed to him after 1613." Both "is" and "are" are correct to use with "none" following a plural noun referent, but "is" sounds jarring. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a nineteenth century spelling not in use today (citing OED). Wiktionary has preeminent. Suggest we go with the commonest current spelling: pre-eminent. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It is in use today, the New Yorker for example uses it. Since the article deals with The Bard himself, the world's most preëminent dramatist and writer in the English language, save none, I don't think there's much wrong with using it. The OED is itself often very prescriptive, and inter-wiki citing is generally not a good practice. Though your suggestion works too, I think there's nothing wrong with the status quo. Ktlynch ( talk) 15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
To make up for my flippant tone, which an American - god bless them - could never have; Gentlemen I give you precedence. Believe me, I am sincerely yours, Ktlynch ( talk) 13:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Seriously though, preëminent? This is the first and only time I've seen it spelled this way in my entire life. And yes, I read, often. Aren't you just trying to make some kind of point with this spelling? A kind of... 'look at me' point? -- taras ( talk) 21:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Since late December, I have been engaged in editing the Shakespeare authorship question page in an effort to bring some balance and accuracy, so that people who might be encountering the topic for the first time can read an accurate and neutral article instead of promotional propaganda. As you might guess, it is a Sisyphean task, but I believe I've made some progress. If anyone would like to pitch in, or just go by and see what has been done, please feel free to do so. At the current rate of progress, I estimate it will take a year or better to get the article in shape, but with more editors knowledgeable about Shakespeare it could be done more quickly. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a more neatly presented, and more accurately depicted, coat of arms in Shakespeare's life. I suggest, supported by the WP:SS and WP:UNDUE policies, that we don't need it here as well.-- Old Moonraker ( talk) 11:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Most editors here will be interested in this thread at the ANI board. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me correctly quote this? reference: My Crown is in my heart... not made of diamonds or jewels, nor to be seen by anyone.........
Many Thanks, Jeanelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.140.80 ( talk) 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of you might be interested in this discussion. Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Could anyone besides Cairnon and I comment on this exchange?
I personally feel that it is a mistake to "correct" the original spelling of Shakespeare's stone. Since we are directly quoting it, we should write it as it is written. The use of a 'y' in place of a thorn was widespread in early modern England. Modern scholars don't ever, in all the reading I've done, feel the need to replace Ys with thorns. Why should we? Wrad ( talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is wrong when it says that the date is not known because he was born on the same day he died...
People need to know this and not be dumb founded when they can not find an answer.
*site your source please.
"It will randomly work out" (
talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
According to the article he has 2 dates of birth - can someone change one back to "death" —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.34.73.120 (
talk) 18:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The current paragraph referring to this topic is not NPOV for several reasons. It belittles the theory with the last sentence, it gives added weight to the Oxford theory without explaining evidence for this weight (evidence is also not provided in the separate Wiki entry either), and the paragraph begins by implying that there were no doubts about authorship for the first 150 years. Proponents of the theory see doubts in all the actions of Shakespeare's colleagues, in Ben Jonson's eulogy, in the statue at Wilton House, etc. I'm adding the NPOV heading and hope to see discussion as to why my proposed paragraph was considered unacceptable. Jdkag ( talk) 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) --
Old Moonraker (
talk) 21:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Saying that there was no doubt for the first 150 years is as non-NPOV as it would be to start the article by saying that for 400 years researchers have been searching, generally unsuccessfully, for a literary trail connecting the Shakespeare of Stratford to the writing of the poetry and plays. The comment in the paragraph about "only a small minority of academics" is also non-NPOV unless you point out that this is the conclusion of a survey of English Literature professors. Look at the arguments raised at www.doubtaboutwill.org; they do not mention anything about "codes." The arguments raised in Mark Twain's book are simple and have not been adequately addressed in the 100 years since he wrote them. But this is not the place for us to convince each other of whether there is room for doubt or not, it is a place to discuss the proper way to summarize the topic. The paragraph needs to be rewritten so as not to belittle the Anti-Stratfordian position and to raise at least one reasonable argument made by the Anti-Stratfordians, so as to convey some sense of the issue.
By the way, after looking at the quotes at www.doubtaboutwill.org, I have to agree with Moonraker about Leslie and Dickens, and I've written to the site suggesting that they remove these names. The others all seem credible, and in place of Leslie and Dickens, a list of prominent figures could include Supreme Court Justices Stevens and O'Connor. In my own mind, the best argument is that no written manuscripts remain, indicating that someone wanted to hide their origins. But any reasonable argument would suffice to raise the summary paragraph to NPOV. Including the partial list of "proposed candidates" is not necessary unless it is to point out that referenced authors, such as Gibson, see them as being less credible than Shakespeare himself. (No candidate has yet been proposed convincingly, which is why there is still doubt.)
I personally would be interested in learning more and hope that the main article can be fixed up to be NPOV and to include good links. For example, the Stratfordian site shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html#5 lists three pieces of evidence connecting Shakespeare the actor to the works within his lifetime. These are: a reference to the playwright as a "fellow," perhaps of actors, in a 1601 student play in Cambridge; the John Davies poem, To our English Terence; and the citation in the Annales. If there are links to additional evidence, please let me know. Jdkag ( talk) 14:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion of authorship POV at
relates to whether or not to include the issue of authorship in the Shakespeare entry. Now that it is in, it should be made NPOV. There needn't be more than two or three sentences, but those sentences should not be sentences belittling the theory. That means putting one or two links to Anti-Stratfordian books and websites, in addition to the links to Stratfordian references. The doubt about Shakespeare authorship is not a fringe theory by Wiki standards and shouldn't be represented as such by emotional Stratfordians. I would also remove references to possible candidates, as this is also an emotional issue.
I think we should leave the POV heading until the three sentence summary can be made neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdkag ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Reversions explained: WS may have had a Catholic family background, but this isn't "ethnicity". Great Britain is an anachronism. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 10:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
yea ur right, but he belongs to a Catholic and as far i'm concern he remained to be a Catholic until his death.
And secondly removing nationality is utterly nonsense there is no denying that is indeed a British and he hasn't taken any other citizenship of a country.-- Kkm010 as© 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with you but the ? is we should come to a clear conclusion that what this persons nationality and ethnicity is, its too much confusion but still i want to put both confusing facts. and why you people stopped or refrain from discussion. Their should be a clear conclusion that what this writer ethnicity and nationality.-- Kkm010 as© 15:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Vandalising comments removed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I would like to suggest a website that has an extensive list of monologues and scenes from Shakespeare's works which can be useful to actors looking for material to work on or researchers. Monologues and scenes have a summary of the story leading to the scene, information on the type of monologue and location. I think what makes it interesting is also that the database can be searched by specific criteria, not only gender and type of monologue/scene but also by the number of characters (for scenes), emotions explored in the scene and main action. Here's the link:
http://www.actorama.com/monologues/scenes/shakespeare
Natkollar (
talk) 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for replying promptly to my posting. I respect your decision but I would like to make it clear that the website is not "promotional" and does not require registration. It would be great if you could provide a better reason or if you write that is promotional at least point out what it is promoting. The reason I thought it could be of interest is because it actually has one of the biggest databases of monologues from Shakespeare's works and the only searchable database of scenes. Also the website has been reviewed by two highly respected newsletters and research blogs, the Internet Scout Report and Researchbuzz.org, which consider it a useful resource:
http://www.researchbuzz.org/wp/database-of-monologues-and-scenes-from-films/
http://scout.wisc.edu/Archives/SPT--FullRecord.php?ResourceId=27810
Again, I respect your decision. Only it would be great if you could point out a better reason for not including it. Thank you Natkollar ( talk) 23:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
To Old Moonraker- I am not sure what "business network" gives away, a bit. The website is free and nothing is sold there. Membership is not a requirement. The fact that actors, directors, casting directors, producers, agents/managers use the site to network is one aspect of the website. Another is that it has one of the largest online resources of monologues and scenes, including Shakespeare. If you think is not a good resource, I accept that. Just curious about what "business network" gives away, a bit. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkollar ( talk • contribs) 07:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
In his The New Atlantis, he remarked that Jews “hate the name of Christ and have a secret and innate rancor against the people among whom they live.” He also disapproved of non-Jewish usurers as “Judaizers” who would wear “tawny bonnets” like Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.146.118 ( talk) 10:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You are referring to a work by Francis Bacon, not Shakespeare.-- 67.160.236.84 ( talk) 07:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Although I suspect topic fatigue has set in for many editors, it would be much appreciated if some would weigh in on this discussion about whether inserting the Shakespeare authorship question into Shakespeare's plays is a violation of WP:ONEWAY. The discussion preceding the current one has more information. Same actors, same topic, same arguments, but it would be nice to get this settled so we don't have to go through this on every article. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is being held here that would interest most Shakespeare editors. Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
William Shakespeare has also been given scrip writing credit on the 1st series
BBC
1980s
sitcom
Blackadder
Daveallen1983uk ( talk) 19:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I know most editors don’t think the Shakespeare authorship question deserves serious study, but I happen to agree with James Shapiro and Irvin Matus that ignoring it is tantamount to deserting the public, who very much believe that authorship is important and interesting. Sam Schoenbaum, Stanley Wells, Jonathan Bate, and a host of other Shakespeareans have thought it worthwhile to write about.
With the upcoming film Anonymous due to be released in 2011, I think it’s going to be important that a neutral, well-sourced Wikipedia authorship article is available for reference. Whether academics like it or not, Wikipedia is probably the first place people turn to for information on a topic. Whether what they find is accurate is up to us, those who are stricken with the compulsion to write and edit Wikipedia articles for no compensation whatsoever except for whatever intangible rewards we find in doing so, a motivation that is not always easy to explain.
The reason for all this rhetoric is to invite good editors to take a look at the Shakespeare authorship question article and go over it with a fine-toothed comb. Nishidani and I have been working on this version for quite some time now, and early this week an editor moved boldly and replaced the old, contentious article with ours. It surprised us both, because we thought we were months away from that point, and the article is still not complete (although it’s much better than the one it replaced). It’s now in the mainspace, and I think we have a historic opportunity to be the first team of editors to take a fringe article to FA status. By doing so we can stabilise the article and hopefully put behind us a long history of contention and ill-will.
We’re using all reliable sources and striving to keep a neutral point of view and avoid undue weight. Our goal is to just present the topic baldly, conforming to Wikipedia policies and guidelines with no editorialising or rebuttals. If you don’t wish to help edit the page, your comments on the talk page would be much appreciated, but the rewards will be great for those who join us (with apologies to Will and Ben):
Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that Smatprt has been topic banned, are there any Shakespeare editors that could pitch in to bring the SAQ article up to standards? Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
William Shakespears birth date is the same as his death date April 23. You should change that I didnt want to because your page requested not to
Jkled1 (
talk) 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I would have liked to see a larger section on how he influenced language by creating new words and phrases. Or is that a separate article somewhere? Dbjorck ( talk) 14:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I have asked for a peer review of the Shakespeare authorship question page here to get opinions on how the article can be improved before I take it for FA review. Please feel free to comment. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose to revert to the two actors who did the work: John Heminges and Henry Condell. Happy to have the two aristocrats (but with the iw links inserted correctly) mentioned, as noted in the edit summary. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 09:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The current article is dishonest, as its unity suggests the bard of London and the realtor of Avon are one person, even though that is not a court-proven fact. To the contrary, the unexpected bailing of JA suggests otherwise! ("to leak or not to leak, that is the question")
Therefore this article should be split into two articles: a., William Shake-speare (playwright) b., Will Shaksper (merchant-realtor)
Part a., should address the Bard as a spiritual being, free from any earthly references, so its contents stand, even if noble oxen ford the river to invade the scene. Part b., should address the (very little) solid info out there about a certain W. S., who lived in Stratford-upon-Avon. 87.97.101.198 ( talk) 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please split the article - after having read the book by Kurt Kreiler "Der Mann, der Shakespeare erfand: Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford", Insel Verlag, Francfort-on-the-Main and Leipzig 2009. But the book is in German.-- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 11:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have now no time to discuss with you at large, Peter cohen. However, you should be more respectful towards the Oxfordian theory. The people who adhere to it don´t represent anything like a primitive "Shakespeare isn't Shakespeare crowd" as you suggest. It is a very serious theory, by no means anything like a "fringe theory". You should get informed, there are so many sources, my dear. The book by Kurt Kreiler, printed in Germany 2009, is excellent scholarship, believe me. Please read also the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt about the Identity of William Shakespeare", and related information. Or do you want to say that men like Mark Rylance, Sir Derek Jacobi, Jeremy Irons and Michael York are part of "a crowd"? That they would support a theory of which they would not be convinced that it is the right one? Or the US justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O´Connor, Harry A. Blackmun, Antonin Scalia? Or Mark Twain, Henry James, Charlie Chaplin, Sigmund Freud, Georg Cantor, and many others? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 12:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, what madness is this?! the article should talk about his lost years. it should not in any way state as fact that the man was an actor in london, as we can only guess and do not know.
Guesswork is not fact. the prime article should not be locked and is incorrect of pure hard fact. it should read - he 'may' have been an actor, he 'may' have been a schoolmaster we do not know Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.39.67 ( talk) 12:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this section is cited to a website. I don't think this measures up to the standard of this article, however good the site may be, thoughts? Wrad ( talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The production of Shakespeare's sonnets was in some way influenced by the Italian sonnet: it was popularised by Dante and Petrarch and refined in Spain and France by Du Bellay and Ronsard, whom Shakespeare had probably read in translated versions. [2] The French and Italian poets gave preference to the Italian form of sonnet—two groups of four lines, or quatrains (always rhymed a-b-b-a-b-b-a) followed by two groups of three lines, or tercets (variously rhymed c-c-d e-e-d or c-c-d e-d-e)—which created a sonorous music in the rhyme-rich Romance languages, but strained the resources of English. To overcome this problem, Shakespeare chose to follow the idiomatic rhyme scheme used by Philip Sidney in his Astrophel and Stella (published posthumously in 1591), where the rhymes are interlaced in two pairs of couplets to make the quatrain. [3]
Nishidani ( talk) 11:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} I would like to add another bibliographical reference to this article, the following book by René Girard (1991): A Theatre of Envy: William Shakespeare. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195053397. The French translation, Shakespeare : les feux de l'envie, was published before the original English text. This book is often regarded as one of the most important essay written on Shakespeare, which has refreshened our views in the academic area. I think it deserves to be quoted in this article about Shakespeare. Thank you in advance. LelievreS ( talk) 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
From the beginning of the article: 'until the rise of Canadian born poet Brandon Stone, author of revolutionary works such as "Scions of Time".[1]'
That should probably be removed.
-- 94.192.178.219 ( talk) 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Shakespeare was born on the 23rd April
What's the justification, please, for moving Edward III from "Apocrypha" to "History"? This was an unsummarized change and there's only desultory mention, AFAICS, in the talk page archives. I suggest putting it back where it was. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 05:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Please edit Johannes Factotum as a link to wiki: Jack of all trades, master of none, as i cant edit i cant put the link in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.141.142.41 ( talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
trolling by blocked sockpuppeteer |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Twice the lexicon of William ShakespeareCláudio César Dias Baptista, in opus Géa, has twice the lexicon of William Shakespeare's whole opera. That information could be seen in the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista but was deleted, with nonsense allegations and the page was semi-locked. You can see proof about Shakespeare's lexicon in the enter "Léxicon" of the Dicionário Aurélio and in the own book that is mentioned in that enter. Of course you can also discover by yourself how many words William Shakespeare utilized in his whole opera and compare it with the vocabulary present in Géa! Then you will see the Truth by yourself.187.13.70.192 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.79.18 ( talk)
So, Old Moonraker, Dias has reached far beyond than William Shakespeare, because he surpassed him in vocabulary and also created a new language! Regards! 187.13.6.117 ( talk) 12:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC) To Paul Barlow: quantity is not a proof of quality, but is a very strong suggestion, mainly in the case of Cláudio César Dias Baptista's lexicon. When we just inform the number of words of his vocabulary, 30,000, people don't understand the importance of it - is the same as informing how many atoms you have in your body, but when we compare the lexicon of Dias Baptista and Shakespeare, people understand better that, at least, the book Géa should be read and that there is a Fact to be discovered. Regards! 187.13.6.117 ( talk) 12:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
BY:Ahmad Majed Adnan Hilal Saudi Arabia Gr.8 to 9 14 years old Born on January 25 1997 |
98.238.152.51 ( talk) 07:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)If you read the first paragraph about Wllm Shakespeare you will find before the chapter section that some wit has written "there is no point to learn shakespeare its just a waste of time" you don't have to look far, it's there right before the "contents" box. I tried to fix it but couldn't. Please someone, get rid of that if you can 98.238.152.51 ( talk) 07:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
98.238.152.51 ( talk) 07:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)If you read the first paragraph about Wllm Shakespeare you will find before the chapter section that some wit has written "there is no point to learn shakespeare its just a waste of time" you don't have to look far, it's there right before the "contents" box. I tried to fix it but couldn't. Please someone, get rid of that if you can 98.238.152.51 ( talk) 07:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"there is no point to learn shakespeare its just a waste of time", could someone please remove that? 93.125.198.182 ( talk) 11:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
he actually got married to Ann Hathaway who was 26 and pregnant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.32.98 ( talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Henri328 (
talk) 18:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
William Shakespeare was born 23 April. The same day he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.206.239 ( talk) 21:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a question on the sourcing: do the three authors cited (Greenblatt, Bevington, Wells) individually support the statement, or is the statement a (perhaps reasonable) synthesis based on 'three' being considered to be 'wide'? Uniplex ( talk) 16:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It is instructive to take the trouble to read what the sentence actually says. It doesn't claim that Shakespeare is the world's greatest writer; it says "... widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist." Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
H.L. Mencken was the greatest writer in the English language; everyone knows that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanshusband ( talk • contribs)
Re: "Obviously I mean JS Bach, that's who people mean when they say "Bach". This is pointless pedantry, since you miss the point that I am talking about eveluation now, not during the lifetime of the individuals concerned. "
During C.P.E.'s lifetime when people said "Bach", they meant C.P.E. Bach, and the "pointless pedantry" is yours (as is the temporal equivocation)--yet your analogy is simply perpetuating a musically uninformed popular misconception. Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious that the "widely regarded" qualification is there only because you know can't get away with an unqualified "greatest". I am arguing that the article doesn't need to say "greatest" in any way, shape, or form. TheScotch ( talk) 06:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
For example, Johannes factotum, in the way I just linked it here? Not everyone will understand these phrases and after all, isn't that why we have Wikipedia? I have edit permissions, but I would prefer it if someone agreed with me before it's changed. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The article refers to a Royal Patent, but searching wikipedia brings up Letters Patent instead. So which is correct? In either case, shouldn't the term be linked to the appropriate article? I'll leave it to people who are more versed on the topic to decide, but I thought it should be mentioned and discussed. 71.134.237.3 ( talk) 07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section about plays, would it be appropriate to add this media as an example performance? Pine talk 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't think so. It would open the gate to the article being packed with hundreds of these. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Pine talk 07:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is currently vandalism on the wikipedia page for William shakespear in the first line. I would like to be able to fix this vandalism. BCthroughNL ( talk) 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The text mentions that "Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution" [9] which I thought was ambiguous and subjective (how much is "small"), so I replaced it with what I felt was a more accurate sentence reflected by the source. However, the sentence is restored on the grounds that "the source is misleading". In which case:
A man for whom 1 pound is 6% of his total weight would weigh about 17 pounds... Wrad ( talk) 02:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we should add more discussion on the authorship dispute. Will Shakspere of Stratford could barely write his name. He did not speak English of the variety understood in London, and he left school at 14. He was a drifter, a fugitive, and a greedy land-grabber. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at the facts that Will Shakspere did not write these plays, that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym, and that we've been honoring the wrong person for 400 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.1.93 ( talk) 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
In 1600 there was a consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth. I'm not sure we should always go with the consensus. It might also be noted that this "consensus" you constantly talk about is not really a consensus. It's a manufactured "consensus." Plenty of Shakespeare scholars do not agree with it. What is the proper place to discuss these things in detail? If you go into other articles on the authorship question, these issues are deleted off the discussion page, and changes made to the article are deleted. No one by the name of "William Shakespeare" wrote these plays. Will Shakspere did not write them, either. Most likely most of the writing was done by Edward de Vere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanshusband ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Surely Galileo could have published his ideas in the discussion section. You would allow that, wouldn't you? Where exactly should a present-day Galileo speak out, if the consensus favors suppressing his view? There is a conspiracy among Shakespeare professors, most of them anyway, to bury the Oxfordian authorship theory. They will not even discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanshusband ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Who decides what the "best reliable sources" are? What is reliable? What is good? You're just using self-reinforcing criteria to perpetuate a viewpoint you have no desire to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MillardFillimore ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all my appology for posting this at the bottom without a headline. Please disregard that posting if it shows up on the "saved page". Regarding my recent edit to Wikipedia, William Shakespeare, Early life (second paragraph) which was undone by Reedy: Original text: “Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the curriculum was dictated by law throughout England, and the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics.” Text as edited by me: “Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, however the school would have provided a substantial education in Latin grammar and some exposure to the classics.” Noting that Wikipedia policy is “verifiability, not truth”, and that “secondary sources” are preferred over “primary sources”, I point out, nevertheless, that the primary sources (that is the government “statutes” or Royal Injunctions) that Baldwin and Cressy rely on, do not prescribe anything remotely approaching a standardize curriculum of literary “classical” texts. To be absolutely clear, the relevant Royal statutes and injunctions, which are wonderfully brief, make no provision with regard to specific literary texts. And, to clarify what may be an underlying source of confusion, the term “statute” or “statutes”, as it appears in Baldwin in reference to curriculum, always refers to statutes for individual schools (such as Eaton or Westminster), that is, internal statutes and not Royal or Government “statutes” applicable “throughout England”. However, since, as matter of Wikipedia policy, the issue here is “not truth”, but “verifiability”, the challenge I present to Mr. Reedy is to verify, from Baldwin, the claim that: “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”. I believe that the closest Baldwin comes to such a claim is his own claim of “essential uniformity”, which (putting aside the questionable nature of that claim) can hardly be equated to, “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”. Therefore, unless I have missed something, if Baldwin is to be used accurately, the statement “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”, is not verifiable by that source. Nor, by the way, is it verifiable by Cressy. With regard to the second claim that the Stratford grammar school would have “provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics”: that would indeed coincide with Baldwin’s opinions and statements (as I read Baldwin), though, clearly, without a “curriculum...dictated by law”, such statements stand exposed as conjecture. Ssteinburg ( talk) 12:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Baldwin does not use that exact phraseology. Here are the relevant extracts:
A royal command during this period was just that: dictated by law, the King being the ultimate authority, and objecting to the exact wording is merely quibbling. As to your objection, "The royal injunctions quoted there apply to grammar, not to literary texts", you do know we're talking about a grammar school, don't you? Exactly what do you think a grammar school of the time taught? There is a reason it was called a grammar school. If you read Baldwin, you will learn that the students did grammar exercises by translating the classics, such as Terence and Ovid, the very same authors that were major sources for Shakespeare. In short, the sentence you object to is an accurate summation of Baldwin as it reads, but if you believe that changing "dictated by law" to "standardised by royal decree" is warranted, I would have no objections.
As to Groatsworth, this article, as per Wikipedia policy, reflects the current scholarly consensus. When the consensus changes, the article will follow suit. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
In response to your “aside”, you seem to be saying that those who disagree with you should not bother. Why not go ahead and post a notice, lock the article down, and stop all discussion with outside editors? Who cares about the “five pillars”? And, as an aside, if this work tires you, maybe you should take a break. Ssteinburg ( talk) 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I finally accessed the edition of Cressy that is cited in the article. The relevant citations are under the headings "Royal Injunctions, 1559" and "Canons of 1571", pp. 28-9. The first reads "Elizabeth inherited Cardinal Poles's procedures for examining schoolmasters and developed them into a national system of control," and then quotes a section of the injunction: "Item, that every schoolmaster and teacher shall teach the grammar set forth by king Henry VIII of noble memory and continued in the time of king Edward VI and none other...." The second reads "The control of schoolmasters was strengthened in 1571 .... The church canons of that year set forth the prerequisites for the grant of a teacher's license and elaborated the formal duties of schoolmasters," and also quotes part of those canons: "... Schoolmasters shall teach no grammar but only that which the Queen's Majesty hath commanded to be read in all schools throughout the whole realm...."
I erred above in stating that math was not taught. According to S.J. Curtis' History of Education in England (1953), arithmetic was taught to the younger students in the first two forms by the usher (pp. 89-90), and "History and geography were taught incidentally in connection with the authors read," as well as "a little geometry and astronomy to the higher forms" (90). They did not, however, teach reading or writing. Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm tired of going round and round about this. Early on I offered to change the statement to "standardised by royal decree", and you later said you would be satisfied with "grammar curriculum". How about we merge the two and rewrite the sentence to read " Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the grammar curriculum was standardised by royal decree throughout England, and the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics."
If you don't agree, take it to dispute resolution, because I'm done with this. Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
williaum shakespare
http://www.bollywoodmantra.com/video/shakespeare-siciliano-2-messina-famiglia-florio-di-palermo-michele-angelo-crollalanza/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.33.180.107 ( talk • contribs)
Macbeth has a dagger after it, indicating that the play was only partially written by WS. I could find nothing to support this in the Wik/macbeth article. Kdammers ( talk) 09:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Shakespeare Festival 2012, every play of the author is going to be staged in different languages. It says that there's going to be 37 plays. So Shakespeare had 37 plays not 38.
Ahdiker ( talk) 08:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Tonight at 9pm UK time and at the same time for the next two weeks, Shapiro presents three programmes entitled "The King & the Playwright: A Jacobean History". The episodes are entitled "Incertainties" [what sort of word is that?], "Equivocations" and, uh, they aren't saying what the third is called. Here's the bumf and a clip, together with repeat times. For those who can't get BBC4, the episodes will probably each be available via the BBC iPlayer for a week. -- Guillaume Tell 16:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to elaborate. The old, and suggested new text, is:
By 1604, he had moved north of the river again, to an area north of St Paul's Cathedral with many fine houses. There he rented rooms from a French Huguenot named Christopher Mountjoy, a maker of ladies' wigs and other headgear
By 1604, he was north of the river again. This was in an area with many fine houses known as Cripplegate, which adjoined the gateway of that name in the city wall. There he lived, essentially as a lodger, in the probably quite large house cum workshop that accommodated the family, apprentices and servants of Christopher Mountjoy,a French Huguenot maker of decorative ladies' headgear. Various writers and actors lived in and around this area, including two of Shakespeare's closest colleagues in the King's Men - John Heminges and Henry Condell, the future editors of the First Folio. 92.8.175.248 ( talk) 09:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
i think you should add a game quiz after the article and put it so it can be fun for the people after they read — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.229.228 ( talk) 13:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I am little confused; at info box; occupation says Playwright, what does it mean ? Or does it should be simply Play writer ? regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 23:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
his birth date is 23 april 1564. You can search it from google.
117.203.132.45 ( talk) 14:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done: this has been requested many times before. See here, and a few other places on that page, for the explanation.-- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The Folger Shakespeare Library wants to upload their collection of images, many (or most) which are documents. See the images here. If you are able to do so, please get in touch with User:Kaldari. Thanks! SarahStierch ( talk) 17:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised to realise we have no dedicated article about the translations of Shakespeare's works into other languages.
My interest was peaked piqued by reading in
Maciej Słomczyński the claim that he was "the only person in the world to translate all the works of William Shakespeare". It's a huge claim, and desperately in need of a citation, which I've now called for.
Then, I got to thinking about this. There are legions of Shakespeare translations, into German, French, Russian, Spanish, Italian and all the rest, and many of them were done by very notable people, but most would have been piecemeal translations of individual plays etc. For example, I know Boris Pasternak did a Russian translation of Hamlet and maybe a few other plays (*), but no more. I also have in my library a Russian translation of all 154 Sonnets, by Samuil Marshak, but I'm not aware he ever tackled the plays, and our article makes no such claim. I can't think of anyone who is known for having translated Shakespeare's entire oeuvre into another language, unless the Słomczyński claim can be verified.
I assume there are publications of Shakespeare Collected Works translated into any other language one cares to name, but is any of these publications the work of a single translator?
Where would one start on gathering together material for an article dealing with the various translations of Shakespeare? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
A footnote refers to "September 1769, when the actor David Garrick organised a week-long carnival at Stratford to mark the town council awarding him the freedom of the town", which is cited from a book by Ian Mcintyre called Garrick (1999). In the 18th century there were no town councils, I suppose what is meant is the Corporation of the borough, which perhaps made Garrick a freeman. Can someone with the resources needed please try to fathom this? Moonraker ( talk) 21:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, what does 'glover' mean? It is written in the first sentence here.-- Sogenius ( talk) 14:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to add the following link to Shakespeare's Monologues in the external resources.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanlemke ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Another possible author, as well as De Vere etc., is Henry Neville — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.59.166 ( talk) 22:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There has been more than one attempt to introduce the factoid that a new study has "discovered" that Shakespeare was prosecuted for grain hoarding in 1598. In fact this has been known for decades (indeed, for over a century, since it is mentioned by Sidney Lee). It is, IMO, not appropriate to glue on material about every speculation coming from scholars that happens to take the fancy of the mainstream press, but this is ancient news. IMO the topic would be appropriate for the Shakespeare's life article, but not here. Just type the words "Shakespeare grain hoarding" into Google Books to see how many hundreds of books have discussed this over the last half century [13]. Try it with "Shakespeare tax" too [14]. So I don't think we should be "crediting" Aberystwyth University with this non-discovery. Even the connection to Coriolanus is old news. See many of the readily available discussions of the issue. [15] [16] [17]. In other words, editors have always had this material available should they have chosen to include it, so it should not be added as a new discovery, but rather discussed whether it is appropriate at all for the main article. Paul B ( talk) 13:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
BTW, Jonathan Bate says of this "discovery" that the authors have "given new force to an old argument about the contemporaneity of the protests over grain-hoarding in 'Coriolanus." [my italics] Paul B ( talk) 13:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
he died on the same day on his birthday no actually knows when his birthday was through the only one who knew was shakespear him self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.166.222 ( talk) 14:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I had to get two numbers from further down in the article, subtract one from the other, and bring the number (24 years) back up to the summary of his works to get a taste of how quick Bill was shelling this stuff out. I'd like to suggest a 3 word addition in the intro paragraph, shown in bold below...
William Shakespeare (26 April 1564 (baptised) – 23 April 1616)[nb 1] was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.[1] He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon".[2][nb 2] His extant works over 24 years, including some collaborations, consist of about 38 plays,[nb 3] 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, two epitaphs on a man named John Combe, one epitaph on Elias James, and several other poems. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.[3]
Pb8bije6a7b6a3w ( talk) 05:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Most sources agree that William Shakespeare was born on April 23, not the 26th as the site currently states. Please change his date of birth from April 25, 1564 to April 23, 1564. 24.218.81.41 ( talk) 04:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi,
I had searched for the day Shakespeare was born and all the other sources on internet indicate that he was born on April 23 and not April 26 as stated on Wikipedia. I found this consistently on both www.google.com and www.bing.com. I would like to request you to do some more research to see which of the two dates is correct.
Thank you
Madhuvasu (
talk) 18:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Just saw that this has already been addressed. Sorry for the repetition! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhuvasu ( talk • contribs) 23 April 2013