Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 10

message: Is the picture of Will Shakespeare in Main Page/tomorrow supposed to have an earing? It seems weird to me... Astrale01talkcontribs 00:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the earring is, strange though it may seem, in the original Chandos portrait. Joe 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether it's accurate to say it's 'strange'. Chandos portrait says that earrings were emblematic of poets of the time. Earring doesn't really discuss the history (nor does body piercings) but it does mention that earrings amongst males is making a comeback which suggests it may have actually been more common historicly. Remember that just because ear piercings or earrings have traditionally been seen as a female thing in contempory times, it doesn't mean it was always so. Fashions change all the time. For example, pink is often seen as a 'feminine' colour in western cultures and even in many more modern Asian cultures influenced by the west. (Blue being masculine) But the association of colours with genders is evidentally a fairly recent thing and pink was seen as a masculine colour with blue as a feminine colour in the early 20th century according to some sources . Also pirates really wore earrings evidentally for example . Nil Einne 10:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough, I had occasion to reference that precise Google Answers thread in a discussion about the red-blue issue a few months hither at the science reference desk.  In any case, you are quite right about the evolution of various fashion trends, and I meant only to suggest that the earring might well be understood by most modern views as "strange"—that earrings may have been relatively common amongst males several centuries ago is not, I'd suggest, commonly known—and, in fact, might appear to many/most to be a vandalistic addition to the image. Joe 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well according to the above it may have arisen from acupuncture Nil Einne 13:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare 

message: 1. Is this a copyright violation?
2. "But me no buts" is not Shakespeare, but Fielding.  Shakespeare wrote "Grace me no grace, nor uncle me no uncle" (Richard II) and "Thank me no thanks, nor proud me no prouds" (Romeo and Juliet).  --RobertG ♬ talk 11:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a wholesale copy of an article by Bernard Levin. Are we allowed to quote passages that long? The Drama Llama 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What article are you referring? Is it on this page? Tom Reedy 14:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have gone now. It was in the 'influence' section. The Drama Llama 14:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was deleted here.  Thank you.  --RobertG ♬ talk 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent "Shakespeare's contribution to English" addition 

message: ... has this article been article of the day? Surely there are some other less well known articles that are just as good? (Willieboyisaloser 14:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first time. Let's use it again tomorrow. :) Wrad 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many times?... 

message: hey you need to change the picture, someone has messed around with it Drparsons 15:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Why was the line about the difference between Kempe and Armin roles removed? --Scottandrewhutchins 15:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unreferenced, sounds like ORSmatprt 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the confusingest day ever. I assume what is there now is what you are talking about, and it seems to have been reverted. As far as the funery picture, Stephen, let's wait until it settles down and we can figure out how to place it so it doesn't interfere with the titles or look off the page. The next time I'm in Stratford I'll take some pics from the other side. Tom Reedy 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Confusingest" is a good word for it. It feels like three or four of us are standing on one side of the tennis net while balls are fired at us from all directions. What happens (see below) is that the new edits start to require further edits to balance them or make them fit, and more new editors oblige, until parts of the article shift from clear to fuzzy. Things are added to certain parts of the article, even though they are dealt with elsewhere. I've tidied up as many things as I can, so that the shifting doesn't get out of control. Vandalism is the easy part.qp10qp 17:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the smoke dies down we probably should look at rewriting it, or at least doing another deep copy edit. We should get some good suggestions from all this, though. Tom Reedy 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kempe and Armin 

message: Two editors have removed this additon due to the problems with date and text that surround this play.  Perhaps you could add it elsewhere, as it does not seem to beling in this section?Smatprt 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some readers didn't notice that the collaborations weren't mentioned (until today) in this section; with the additions, that is no longer clear, but the idea is to pick out clear themes and stages in Shakespeare's playwriting career. Timon is really not worth mentioning in this largely greatest hits section; not only is its date unclear and its collaborative aspects the subject of much scholarly disagreement, but it seems that it was never performed during Shakespeare's lifetime and may have been published in the First Folio as an unfinished manuscript. As such, it does not fit logically or organically into the paragraph. qp10qp 16:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not exactly what he meant, nor is it his entire point. Timon doesn't fit for other reasons which he outlined. Also, I'd say that many would disagree with the idea that those two plays, especially MfM, aren't greatest hits. No one would ever argue Timon was. Wrad 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands now, only four plays are unmentioned. Why should that number go up to 5? The tone of the sentence is similar to Eliot's praise of A & C. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors, perhaps thinking that they were spotting accidental omissions, have been adding mentions of more plays as the day has gone on, so the rationale of the section, which was to focus on selected plays in the context of themes and developments in an organic paragraph structure, is somewhat collapsing, I admit. Yes, it is getting to the point where if editors want every single play mentioned in this section, then we ought to try and rewrite it. In my opinion this cannot be done well through accretion, though. It would be a shame to end up with Wikipedia  puddingstone style. We have to find something about Timon that will make it fit rather than hang off the paragraph. In what way does it fit into the story of Shakespeare's evolution as a playwright? The theme of loss of power, perhaps? We need a source that can connect it for us. qp10qp 16:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timon

message: The first line of the article currently reads:
:William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564 – 23 April 1616)[a] was an English poet and playwright,
The "baptised" line is, I think, intended to say that he was born shortly before that date, but that the date is uncertain.  But this (implied) claim needs a citation for it to mean anything; some people get baptised when they're 2 years old, or 6 years old, or 40 years old.  Tempshill 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added a note and a citation.qp10qp 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, adding "Samuel Schoenbaum believes we may "reasonably infer" that Shakespeare was born on the 21st, 22nd or 23rd of April 1564." unreasonably privileges his view, and unreasonably so, as there's no real basis for such an inference. The only inference that can be made was that he was born by the 26th of April. - Nunh-huh 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could add some inferences made by other biographers, if you like. Tempshill wants to narrow it down somehow, I think.qp10qp 21:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the point, isn't it? Wanting to narrow it down is no excuse for narrowing it down. Adding other erroneous assumptions is no help to anyone. The only fact here is that baptismal dates are often used by genealogists and biographers on the assumption that they are probably close to the actual birth date. The assumption may be right or may be wrong in any particular instance. It's an approximation, a probability. Guessing at three particular dates is not a "reasonable inference" and the fact that Schoenbaum does it, and claims it is reasonable, is of no importance, and our reporting it as though it might be is a distortion.   - Nunh-huh 22:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but as you know, an inference is not a guess, and it seems to be a normal part of Shakespeare scholarship to construct inferences. The article is riddled with such already. I don't need  to repeat to you the bases for these inferences, I'm sure. Ackroyd says he "may have been" born on one of these three days. Honan says "it is possible that Shakespeare was born on either the 21st, 22nd, or 23rd, but the day is still unkown". Well, the article says that the date is unknown and the note says that in Schoenbaum's view we could reasonably infer one of three dates. We could change that to "it is possible that it is one of", to weaken the inference. Or should we ignore these inferring biographers by going back to not referencing estimates of the birthday? In which case, Tempshill suggests, the reader may imagine that Shakespeare was baptised at other times in his life, nowhere near the baptism. But who (scratches chin) would really think such a thing?  qp10qp 22:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to mention those three dates in any way, as there's nothing at all special about them. We might say something like "most biographers believe he was born shortly before he was baptised; his actual birth date is unknown." Frankly, I don't think the note is necessary. - Nunh-huh 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, give me a moment and I'll nuke it.qp10qp 00:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "baptised" in intro 

message: I find it appalling that even the portrait I've grown up believing is Shakespeare might not be him. Shakespeare's life is truly a mystery. - Throw 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I wouldn't worry too much; in my opinion, it really is him. If you look carefully at the Droeshout engraving on the front of the First Folio and compare it with the Chandos, I think it becomes clear that the latter is a derivative of the former. I doubt the artist ever set eyes on Shakespeare, though, and, of course, the portrait could be a derivative of a derivative (common practice at the time), and so on.qp10qp 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's highly likely that the Chandos depicts shakespeare, but very unlikely that the Droeshout derives from it. The Droeshout (or at least the head) is assumed to be copied from a lost drawing or painting. Paul B 09:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I wasn't saying that the Droeshout derives from the Chandos, but the other way round. The Droeshout is the nearest we'll probably come to what Shakespeare looked like, plus the poorly executed memorial effigy. I agree that the Droeshout is probably an engraving of a lost painting.qp10qp 10:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for misunderstanding you, but the view that the Chandos derives from Droeshoout is not mainstream among art historians. It's generally thought to be an idependent work, which very likely depicts Shakespeare. Paul B 13:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: could be, maybe, very likely, probably. Like most things Shakespeare, lets admit we havn't a clue what he looked like, and that not one of the portraits is beyond doubt.Smatprt 14:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no. The Droeshout and the memorial are beyond doubt intended to depict Shakespeare. The Chandos very probably is. There is nothing unusual about this. We have no strong reason to suppose that this depicts Marlowe, and we have no image at all of Kyd. Paul B 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard it proposed that the Droeshout may have been based on a mask.  It looks like one, the head is out of all proportion to the body, the artist could not have been working from life or memory, and, as an actor, Shakespeare may have had a head mask.  Anybody else hear that idea? Carlo 19:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard the idea dismissed, and I think it fanciful. The  engraver was probably working from a drawn or painted portrait. qp10qp 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The portrait might not even be Shakespeare?

message: Because of concerns over how I acted in semi-protecting this article while it was linked by the main page, I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User talk:Alabamaboy#Request for comment on my use of admin powers. Based on how the comments go, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions. I hope people will comment since it directly affected this article.--Alabamaboy 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally thought it was really weird that this page was unprotected at the one time it was likely to get vandalism. It was featured on the main page for goodness sake! Why was this ever even an issue? I don't appreciate it when people replace the Bard's picture with a picture of testicles, and that's just one of a hundred things that happened today that could have been avoided if it had been constantly protected as 'bama had it in the first place. Wrad 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the (contentious) Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection guideline. -- JHunterJ 11:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: Since the article appears to not be editable, We could mention here: Under the 'Influences' section, there are two plays by Shakespeare made into operas by Verdi. You left out Verdi's Macbeth. 76.67.60.229 03:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is left out, but there is good reason for doing so. The passage is about the fact that Otello and Falstaff have a critical standing that "compares with the source plays". Macbeth, an early Verdi work, does not. Paul B 09:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is editable. A number of good edits by sharp-eyed, sophisticated and knowledgeable editors have stood after yesterday's editing spree, and the article is the better for it.qp10qp 10:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verdi