Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 1

message: Removed claim about being the most influential after the Bible.  That statement is just nonsensical, as written.  --Robert Merkel 06:55, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Most influential claim

message: In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, the Klingon chancellor Gorkon says that "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." According to an interview on the Star Trek 6 SE DVD this is in reference to the Nazis, who claimed Shakespeare as their own and made a similar claim. I have put this information in Star Trek cultural references#Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. However, after quite a bit of googling, I have not been able to find any sort of reliable source of how or when this claim would have been made. Do any of you Shakespeare-wikipedians know anything about this, and could you in that case perhaps write something about it or point me to a source where I can learn about it (so that I can write about it)? – Foolip 00:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: German critics "claimed" Shakespeare long before Nazis were dreamed of.  "Shakspere's poetry is, upon the whole, near akin to the German spirit: hence he is appreciated in Germany more than any other foreign poet, and regarded with almost native affection. -- SCHLEGEL, FREDERICK, 1815-59, Lectures on the History of Literature, pp. 274, 276. ; other quotes here: . Whether there's also an additional Nazi race theorist who actually said something akin to "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original German" I cannot say but would not doubt<g>. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi claims to Shakespeare? 

message: My old copy of the complete works, has a pic of what i always assumed to be the bards signiture, however it looks absolutley NOTHING like the picture of his sig that has been posted. anyone know anything else about this? where did the pic come from? The bellman 03:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  sig pic 

message: I think the idea that the Nazis claimed Shakespeare as a German author may be originally a British WWII propaganda myth. Hmmm? Yes that's right: I think we may be dealing with an urban myth, stemming from a British patriotic myth, according to which the Nazis propagated a patriotic myth that Shakespeare was German. At any rate, there's a suggestive bit of dialogue in the 1941 film Pimpernel Smith (US reissue title Mister V), where the fat Nazi general shouts that yorr Schakesperre vass really a Gerrman, and Leslie Howard replies "But you must admit that the English translations are excellent". Mmmm? I don't know that the story comes from this film, but it was well made and seen by a lot of people. Does anybody have anything better, like a reference to an actual Nazi claim?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk) 01:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi claims to Shakespeare revisited

message: Hi, 68.118.61.219, thanks very much for the good info on Shakespeare's Renaissance reputation. I hope you won't be offended if I move it to Shakespeare's reputation, the "Main article" that is linked to just under the heading. The reputation section at William Shakespeare is supposed to briefly summarize Shakespeare's reputation, compare the posts just above. I'm about to move your contribution over there, where it will be a very delightful addition, and reinstitute a shorter version on William Shakespeare. Hope that's OK.--Bishonen (talk)16:34, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving reputation info

message: Now that there is a "Main article" Shakespeare's reputation, the section at William Shakespeare is supposed to be a concise summary of that main article. It would be much appreciated if editors would contribute additional detail at Shakespeare's reputation rather than here. Thank you.--Bishonen (talk) 19:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputation section

message: I have removed four external links (out of five I've taken a look at): Birmingham Central Library Shakespeare Memorial Room because it's broken, Shakespeare's Reputation because it's by no stretch about Shakespeare's reputation; and Short Articles on Shakespeare by Bill Long  and Shakespeare Quotations because they're just pretty poor resources. Seems to me the only way an external links section on a topic as hugely covered on the Internet as Shakespeare is going to be helpful to the reader is if it's highly selective, i. e. limited to extremely valuable Shakespeare web resources. I'll be taking a look at the rest of the external links in a little while, and post anything else I remove here, too, in case anybody disagrees.--Bishonen (talk)20:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Putting section "External links" on a diet

message: Everyone knows theat renaissance England = Shakespeare. But I doubt that all of his works, namely the late ones, are to be called renaissance. They are so rich and complicated, so full of indirect light, that i cann´t resist to call them baroque instead. What´s your view? Is there any evidence, which could justify it?
:I don't think literary baroque is even a coherent concept.  If you go to the Baroque page on Wikipedia, the literary and philosophy section is rather diffusely and arbitrarily written.  I would also argue that someone like Francis Bacon or Ben Jonson (or Henry VIII!) is more representative of renaissance england than Shakespeare. Shakespeare was a product of the renaissance, but not a scholar who encouraged it, as those three were. 68.118.61.219 13:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Barogue Shakespeare?''' 

message: Google gives 16 million hits for Shakespeare. Please only add the best and most useful of these sites to the section External links! Or, alternatively, add the links you like, but please don't be offended if others remove them. The section will become useless if it's not kept lean and mean. I'm removing just-shakespeare.com and Shakespeare--The Lay Bible. Bishonen | talk 01:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links on a diet again

message: The short poem "A Lover's Complaint" is almost certainly by Shakespeare.
http://william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-poem-the-lovers-complaint.htm
It dates from about 1603, yet it is not mentioned in this article.
Ogg 12:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Lover's Complaint 

message: I've restructured the list because:
* It was claimed to be in chronological order but it wasn't. 
* Romances and problem plays were not distinguished.
I've reordered the plays as listed in the First Folio, explained any ambiguities, differentiated the romances, and provided a link to Chronology of Shakespeare plays for an alternative.  The Singing Badger 00:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of plays

message: 'Gold, on a bend (diagonal bar) sable (black), a spear of the first (i.e. gold), steeled argent (with a silver tip); and for his crest... a falcon his wings displayed argent (silver), standing on a wreath of his colours supporting a spear gold, steeled as aforesaid, (i.e. silver) set upon a helmet with mantles and tassles'. 
The motto was "Non sanz droict" or "Not without right". ''
Found this on http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-facts.htm -wherat also a vast quantity of detailed chronology.  Any use here? 213.48.182.7 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare and hereldry 

message: A sentence in the Reputation section, as of Oct 6, 2005:
:In the twenty-first century, Shakespeare is often simultaneously considered both the greatest and the most inaccessible author of all time by the general public. Most inhabitants of the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school, and there is a common association of his work with boredom and incomprehension. At the same time, Shakespeare's plays remain more frequently staged than the works of any other playwright. The negative reputation held by many makes him the target of frequent parody and satire, for example by the comic strip Foxtrot and The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged).
That's sophomoric. If you really think WS is "the most inaccessible author of all time" then you haven't been reading anything outside your narrow cultural milieu (Pynchon or Farid Uddin Attar are certainly more challenging). Methinks this should be rewritten. elpincha 19:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't saying Shakespeare is inaccessible. It's saying Shakespeare is considered by the general public to be inaccessible. It's about his reputation, not reality. The Singing Badger 20:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Elpincha. Did the general public considered Shakespeare "the most inaccessible author of all time"? Shakespeare wrote so simply in his day that it's difficult to find him more inaccessible to, say, Joyce in Finnegans Wake and yes, dear Mr Pynchon.  People nowadays regard him difficult not because he was difficult, but because English has evolved as a language.  Chaucer and Shakespeare - who do you consider more inacessible?  The assertion is also ridiculous.  How can you regard someone as great if you can't even understand what the hell he's writing?  Are the general public idiots? Mandel 12:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't want to answer Mandel's last question :-( Anyway, methinks Badger is correct, and so is my original remark. They're not mutually exclusive. Maybe the solution is to excise the entire sentence, and refer the reader to the reputation article, which is really good as of now. elpincha 13:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My feeling is that the main article should say something, however brief, about the negative perception of Shakespearein the modern age. The current passage is not perfect. But while it may seem paradoxical that Shakespeare's reputation is that of 'greatest writer ever' and 'completely incomprehensible', my personal experience as an educator tells me that this is how the average person in the street sees it. They see great writing as by definition incomprehensible except to experts. It's sad, but true. The Singing Badger 17:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I suspect the majority of the general public has never heard of James Joyce. I have no concrete evidence for this assertion. But I'm sure it's true. :) The Singing Badger 17:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the article, switched "difficult" for "inaccessible".  Difficult is a far more neutral word.  In any case if anyone finds Shakespeare inaccessible it's because they find his language difficult, not because he writes in a cryptic,self-indulgent manner.  So it explains him better. Mandel 18:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputation

message: Shakespeare's other literary works include:
* Shakespeare's Sonnets.
* Longer poems:
** Venus and Adonis
** The Rape of Lucrece
** The Passionate Pilgrim
** The Phoenix and the Turtle
** A Lover's Complaint
That's it. That all that the original article had on his poetry. In my opinion, that is not acceptable. Anyway, my attitude is to work on an article, not trade insults, so if you see places that are still missing info, please add it in. In addition, if you are irritated with Iago Dali's methods, please take that up with him. My goal is to merely make this the best article it can be. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your concerns, I have cut back the sexuality section (and, as said before, I have crafted a larger works section).--Alabamaboy 13:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot add anything to this article without substantially increasing the size, and without being to a large extent duplicates of what you remove to other pages.  As for your "cutting back", do you mean restoring?  I was obviously incensed at what I see at an substantial cutting down of article size without a community consensus to begin with. Mandel 16:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this?  I take this article to Featured Articles to ask for advice as to which direction this article ought to go before it can reach featured status.  I will also ask them to compare the present and pre-Iago state of the article to see where exactly they think are improvements, and if there is anything to my complaint of the article being overly concise.  That way we work towards a common goal. How about it? Mandel 16:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I for one would have no objections to this. All articles should aspire to FA level anyway. The Singing Badger 17:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poems

message: It's funny, I just got an email from another editor who saw my edits on another piece a week or so ago, and complimented me. Then he/she? came over here and loved my taxonomy, although they called the Draconians Vultures. A good analogy, since they are vital in removing waste and tidying up the ecosystem. They tell me that they tend to stay underground and not contact each other via the talk pages, lest be swooped upon by the zealots. I feel like Dostoevsky or Harriet Tubman now. Viva los Vultures! Let me now turn around the criticism and challenge any of the folk who have posted here- prove you're not mere adders, zealots, pruners, or worrywarts, and go fix that novel page. If not, no complaints when I finally tear through its carcass.
Iago Dali 16:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Put a Wikipedia:articles needing attention tag on it. Spend time learning how Wikipedia functions instead of wasting valuable byte-space.  Mandel 15:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I appreciate you stop using POV terms like "bitching" to denigrate other editors.  Unlike many people, a lot of useful editors here do have a job, and have a job to stick to to bring in food for the family, and have other life responsibilities rather than to check on Wikipedia every other day. The fact is that you're just trying to start a flame war, and this attitude is terrible. Mandel 15:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial Challenge

message: This article still need a critical analysis of Shakespeare's plays and poetry. Anyone feel up to doing this? Because critical analysis is essentially the opinions of critics, this section would need to be heavily referenced. I see this section as being different and separate from the one about his reputation. Instead, it would focus on what made his plays and sonnets revolutionary, so that they changed literature in the following centuries.--Alabamaboy 18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to let everyone know that the recent changes to the critical analysis section (now renamed style) are great. Thanks to everyone who is helping.--Alabamaboy 18:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Analysis needed 

message: An attention template was placed on this article by Mandel for what appear to be political reasons (i.e., he disagreed with some of the initial edits to this article by Iago Dali). Maybe I am wrong on this. If so, please let me know. However, since Iago's edits myself and several other dedicated editors have expanded the article in a number of ways and it is a vastly superior to what existed before. While the article still needs work, it does not need this attention template, which implies that the article is deficient in some way. Any comments from others? --Alabamaboy 17:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh, Alabamaboy, please. You were the one who asked for input, not me.  Quote: "Anyone feel up to doing this? Because critical analysis is essentially the opinions of critics, this section would need to be heavily referenced.".  I'm putting a tag in so that people can respond to your plea.  If you feel it's that "political", then you shouldn't complain about the quality of the article and solicit for help above.  Talk about assuming good faith.  Do you really not know the difference between an attention and cleanup tag? Mandel 19:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do know the difference. However, I feel the article does not need the tag. Essentially, the template is to draw attention to neglected articles. This article is anything but neglected and has a ton of fine editors working on it. Haven't you noticed the tremendous amount of work myself and other editors have put into the article lately? For example, the critical analysis section you mention is now the style section after a number of editors worked on it together and it morphed into more of a style critique. IMHO, the article is vastly better now than it was. It still needs work but then all Wikipedia articles are works in progress. Anyway, if you have any ways to improve the article then please pitch in. The template, though, distracts from the already high quality of the article.--Alabamaboy 21:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is not just to draw attention to "neglected" articles, but all articles that can benefit from "expert" attention, editors with knowledge about the subject. Shakespeare will certainly benefit from expert attention. I already mentioned I don't have the expertise to pitch in to contribute to the article.  Articles of this sort need MA or PhD-quality editors to do it justice; they also need the editors to do a lot of reading and referencing. Even if you are a MA or PhD-holder, you will need help.  "Already high quality", "vastly better" is your POV.  Mandel 22:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The more editors the better, in my opinion. Experts are always welcomed. However, I don't see the template doing this. I still oppose putting the template at the top of the article. If you want to attract the attention you desire, then nominate the article for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. If people agree that the article needs serious help, then people will come in droves to improve it.--Alabamaboy 01:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that all attention templates on articles are useless?  Yes? Mandel 02:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The attention template doesn't say that it needs much improvement; it merely states it needs expert help. I suggest you are the one who is really removing the template for political reason.  As for the peer review, we'll see how helpful it is. Mandel 14:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been very polite during this discussion. However, your critique, that this article needs some "experts" implies that those of us editing it already are not experts. This is completely wrong. A number of the editors working on this article are experts in this subject. If others want to join in, that's great too. I find it funny how you continually complain about this article but then do not make any edits to it.--Alabamaboy 14:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you have been at all polite.  You accusing me of being political without reason is both rude and offensive.  I have a right to be angry and I think I'm owed an apology.  As for experts, clearly I do not consider you and Singing Badger "experts" on the subject (no offense, I'm Singing Badger will agree to this, my gauge of an "expert" is much higher) - but that is clearly a matter of POV and there's no such thing as a right and wrong belief.  Removing a template without first recoursing to talk page is another rude gesture.  I will not, and cannot, contribute to an article that I have no sufficient expertise in.  As for complaints, I'm just being honest and direct.  Whether I'm merely being a pain in the arse, or because I want the highest possible standards for a writer who's perhaps the greatest in Western literature, you judge. Mandel 15:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: At the risk of sounding like a jerk, I would like to point out that despite my foolish user name I am an expert, with all the academic qualifications that Mandel requested. I'm not working as hard on this article as I would like to, but I'm striving to keep it accurate and factual with tweaks and corrections. Although the article certainly needs proper referencing, I can assure you all that it's looking good in terms of accuracy. The Singing Badger 16:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, the template is simply there to draw more people like you.  Although Alabamaboy claims "more is better", he certainly doesn't sound like he believe it. Mandel 16:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More people like you? For what it's worth, Mandel, I'm an expert in literature and have the academic credentials you seem to crave. I don't get nearly enough time to edit articles on Wikipedia b/c this is merely a hobby I enjoy (my primary responsibilities are to my own professional writing and academic job, which pays the bills). Like I said, I'm glad you set up the Wikipedia:Peer review/William Shakespeare. I've also had fun editing this article with The Singing Badger and the others and am not surprised that he is an expert in this subject (it shows in his edits). Let's keep this discussion on focus to improve the article.--Alabamaboy 17:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More people like you, meaning The Singing Badger, if you can read, thank you.  Rest assure nobody's attacking your holy academic credentials.  Whether or not you are a trained professor of literature, the template is certainly of use in Wikipedia, unless you think the template draws in third or fourth-grade editors that you don't want. Mandel 17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention Template 

message: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) uses Shakespeare's death as an example of the period in which the use of Julian or Gregorian dates is ambiguous:
Other dates are ambiguous. Your options for this period are:
* Give the dates in the Julian calendar only. This means that the dates will match the dates in the primary sources for that period. If you do this you should indicate that the dates are in the Julian calendar.
* Convert the dates to the Gregorian calendar. This means that events in different countries can be correlated.
* Give dates in both calendars, for example, William Shakespeare died on 1616-04-23 (Old Style)/1616-05-03 (New Style).
I see you have chosen the first option, which probably makes sense considering England didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1752.  However, shouldn't it be made explicit in the article that these are Julian dates, as recommended in the MOS above?
Perhaps a simple disclaimer reading:
All dates before 1752 are in the Julian calendar.
Is this accurate? 
--Dforest 14:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that we should make this distinction. First off, this isn't done on every other article with dates going back more than a few hundred years (in short, we should be consistent). Second, this notation will confuse more people than it helps. If someone is interested in this they can look up the article on the Gregorian calendar. Otherwise, I think we should stick with the dates as they currently are --Alabamaboy 17:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should show both Julian and Gregorian where relevant, which certainly applies to Shakespeare.  The fact that England did not come to the party till 1752 does not alter the fact that the Gregorian calendar had been introduced into other countries by Shakespeare's time.  "23 April 1616" in reference to Shakespeare's death is an entirely different date than "23 April 1616" in relation to something that happened in France, Spain or other countries that had already converted by then (eg. see the discussion on Cervantes).  It looks like we're comparing apples with apples, but we're actually comparing apples with oranges.  The argument "this isn't done on every other article with dates going back more than a few hundred years (in short, we should be consistent)" is an argument for being consistently ambiguous or consistently misleading.  If we simply state a date, with no reference to any calendar, how would the general reader know there is any issue?  They would not go to the article on the Gregorian calendar because there would be nothing to suggest they should do so.  In biographies of Russian people born before 1917 (going right back to 1582), we show both OS and NS dates, and nobody seems to be confused.  Why are we making a different rule for English people born before 1752? The NS calendar is routinely ignored by the British in historical works that refer to dates prior to 1752, which I have always thought was wrong.  It's as if the NS calendar didn't even exist until 1752.  Surely it's our job to educate people about these sorts of important facts, not just perpetuate mediocre conventions and not risk upsetting the historical boat.  JackofOz 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS and Julian/Gregorian dates 

message: What does this mean: From section on style "placed a greater emphasis on poetic dialogue but placed lengthy speecifying over physical stage action." Please clarify.
:: See if it's better now. The Singing Badger 13:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style