Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 8

message: I see some edits have been made using "textual evidence" as a basis. This is a very slippery slope that can be used to justify anything, and I for one don't believe it has any place in an encyclopedia article. I also see a "many scholars have concluded" statement with no corresponding cite or list of scholars. Tom Reedy 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll sort the Catholic stuff tomorrow.qp10qp 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it again I see that "textual evidence" is the basis for all the entries in the speculation section, so it's probably not out of place in that section. It's all extremely slippery and slimey in that section anyway. Tom Reedy 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all sourced through good secondary sources. The new edits aren't. In fact, they place new info before old refs.qp10qp 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! I meant the three topics themselves; they're all based on not much more than speculation based on reading the works as biography. Tom Reedy 00:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since all of these sections are (extremely shortened) summaries of larger articles, wouldn't the phrase "textual evidence" be more a necessary part of WP:Summary style and less a "slippery and slimey" slope? If people want to know more about this evidence, clearly all they have to do is just click on the main article link, or do we want to make these sections larger in order to explain everything? (ick!) Wrad 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we start making them longer, we'll never stop. The key is to sum up the issues in as balanced a way as we can, and let the readers pursue these matters in the full articles. I've just adjusted the wording and refs to "Religion" to mention the textual approach specifically. For once, I'm on home ground, because I have studied the history of Catholicism, recusancy, etc., during this period. The reality is actually more complex than many people believe. As James Shapiro writes: "To argue that the Shakespeares were secretly Catholic or, alternately, mainstream Protestants, misses the point that except for a small minority at one extreme or another, those labels failed to capture the layered nature of what Elizabethans, from the Queen down, actually believed" (Shapiro, 2005: 167).qp10qp 08:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textual evidence? 

message: Sorry to nitpick again. After a quick run-through of the first half, I found the following.
After the birth of the twins, Shakespeare left few historical traces until he was mentioned as part of the London theatrical scene in 1592. As a result, the years between 1585 and 1592 are known as Shakespeare's “lost years”. Non sequitur ("As a result"). They could be called the "unknown years" instead.
John Aubrey reported that Shakespeare had been a country schoolmaster,[23] a tale augmented in the 20th century with the theory that his employer might have been Alexander Hoghton of Lancashire, a landowner who left money in his will to a certain "Shakeshafte". That is one very long noun-phrase ("a tale...").
Evidence from both textual and documentary sources indicates that Shakespeare tailored the roles in his plays to the individual members of the troupe. Vague. If the sources must be mentioned, at least give some indication of how they suggest Shakespeare adapted his roles to members of his troupe.
Rowe was the first biographer to pass down the tradition that Shakespeare retired to Stratford some years before his death,[56] but the practice of retiring was uncommon at that time,[57] and although Shakespeare wrote no plays after 1613, he did travel to and from London after then. Exhausting.
:*But they are called the "lost years," and have been for more than 100 years. I don't think a Wikipedia article is the place to try to begin a new tradition in Shakespeare scholarship. Or am I missing your point?
::*Yes. It does not follow from the previous sentence that the period should be called the "lost years", as implied by "As a result". We had a similar problem with a couple of sentences in the introduction: "Little is known about Shakespeare life. As a result, people have speculated..." or something like that
:*It works; I don't understand your objection, if any. I personally think we should cut the whole Hoghton reference; it's been discredited for years now. (But my objection is on content, not form.)
::*That would work for both of us.
:*We could go into a lot more detail on every sentence in this article, and I don't know if the biography section would be the place for an example on this. The sentence is tightly referenced. How does everybody else feel?
::*It's unsatisfying with "sources indicate..." introduced but not explained; the "sources..." should either be cut or the "indicate" expanded. But I am happy to hear what others have to say.
:*I don't agree that the sentence is exhausting. It is carefully constructed with one clause leading logically into the next, so it is easy enough to follow. I think reading a barrage of simple sentences is more exhausting than reading a variety of them. Again, how does everybody else feel?
::*It's still tiring. I am not suggesting a barrage of simple sentences, but an alternative.
:I think we could go over every section and find all kinds of alternate possibilities that may be preferred one day, but then out of favor the next. We're getting to the point where the edits consisit of personal preferences -- adding a "however" or moving around a clause -- without making much difference to the content. IMO the article is much improved from the way it was a month ago. I suggest we clean it up, regularize the refs, and submit it. I think our perspectives are becoming skewed and we need a judgment from somebody who hasn't looked at the article every day. Tom Reedy 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentences

message: thumb|right|A caption is required, here.
Ivdicio Pylivm, genio Socratem, arte Maronem: Terra tegit, popvlvs mæret, Olympvs habet.
This is my attempt at translation:
Him the earth buries, the people mourn, and Olympus embraces: a Pylius in judgement, a Socrates in genius, a Virgil in art.
:How about replacing it with a picture of the plaque with the poem? I've got one around here somewhere. Tom Reedy 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (From http://shakespeareauthorship.com/eulogies.html) In judgement a Nestor, in wit a Socrates, in art a Virgil; the earth buries [him], the people mourn [him], Olympus possesses [him]. I think a caption should contain the translation, whatever we use above it. RedRabbit 17:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather cut it, because it's not really important. It's a very recent addition. The epitaph is more interesting, if anything really is required. Probably not in both cases, in my opinion.qp10qp 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. RedRabbit 18:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just an opinion, though. May I say that your Latin is coming along rather well, Rabbit. I've forgotten most of mine, I fear—which is infuriating, given the large proportion of my education spent having it drummed into me.qp10qp 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Latin was drilled into my father too, but all he seems to remember nowadays is the dog Latin "bene audax"—used during cricket games. Needless to say, I've received no help from him. RedRabbit 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I added the transcription of the Latin epitaph because the text refers to the tablet and the latin text. If someone can come up with a good (legible, readable) picture of the epitaph (preferably in full) I think that would be much better. And I do think we should have a picture of the tablet here, or, failing to find a good one, a transcription. A translation of the latin is overkill, I think, given we give the gist of it in the main body text. --Xover 19:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got an image, but it's small and I don't know where I got it from. Tonight I'll scan a jpg from my Halliwell-Phillips. Tom Reedy 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Xover, true. I didn't read over the section first. RedRabbit 05:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Funeral monument

message: In the last FA review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/William_Shakespeare, the reviewer Awadewit objects to using encyclopedias to source the lead sentence and says that statements in the lead graf needed to bee cited. Is that still true or has there been some other understanding since then? Tom Reedy 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will change the encyclopedia ones.qp10qp 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Statements in the lead need to be cited if they say something that appears to be different from what is in the main body or is likely to be challenged. The "he is the greatest" stuff needs refs because it is likely to be challenged; same with the "void" bit and the sexuality/authorship stuff. So those have cites. I went through the lead the other day and made sure that it otherwise largely summarises what is cited later in the article. Therefore, I am confident that the lead fits the criteria. If I am wrong, no matter, because as soon as someone asks for anything in the lead to be cited, we can just duplicate-ref it to the cite in the main body, and job done. I'm not in favour of too many cites in the lead, because I prefer readers to have a smooth ride into the main article. I should add that there is an awful lot of balderdash talked about the lead, but in fact the principles are the same there as for the rest of the article: namely that information should be cited where appropriate (in other words, where controversial, likely to be challenged, and for quotes, etc.). qp10qp 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last review issues 

message: Hmm. I think you're right Andy (cf. page history). Still, the sentence “Many critics believe that Shakespeare achieved his deepest portrayals of human beings and his richest poetry in his greatest tragedies.” feels very heavy-handed to me. There's one superlative too many in there. Would it work to replace “his greatest” with “these”, perhaps? Other suggestions? --Xover 14:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very difficult this. But it's work in progress, and I daresay the general critical stuff will get slapped about at FA. I'll try again.qp10qp 14:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've found a simple solution.qp10qp 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, excellent. That's much better. Thanks Qp10qp! (And thanks for catching and fixing my mistake Andy!). --Xover 14:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deepest, Richest, Greatest 

message: Is there any way we could crop this image and have the figure of Shakespeare seems less far off in this picture? I think it would be a good change. Wrad 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It's taller than I thought and unfortunately the picture now runs beyond its own paragraph. It could be done again, keeping more to the proportions of the original. Views? Tried it again, keeping more to the proportions of the original, but it didn't really work. --Old Moonraker 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  funeral monument picture 

message: I can't think of much else to do now, though no doubt the FA reviewers will come up with plenty. So lets take the plunge. 
I hope editors who have worked on the page will sign up to the nom. I'm game to do any dog work necessary (no doubt there will be the usual calls for a copyedit and better prose; I will continue trying to point the prose, anyway); but it would be impressive if there was a group of us responding. Speaking for myself, I'm not prepared to make radical changes in the heat of the review, such as a complete reorganisation of headings and structure or a change to a different referencing style. If we are going to fail over things like that, I'd rather take the necessary time for the work after the FA than rush things and plough up the hundreds of little balances that hold the article together at the moment (I've never been happy about having a "Speculations" section, for example, but folding it into the biography would take time and care, and I wouldn't like to attempt that during FAC). Sometimes nominators have to say: "Well, that is another way of doing it, but we feel the article can pass in its present form.." If we fail, so be it: all that glisters is not gold.
I suggest we should avoid emotional arguments with reviewers, if possible, and stick to polite disagreement should there be a problem. A concession or two never does any harm, so long as we don't do anything to the detriment of the article: goodwill is important in encouraging reviewers to return and reasssess. But I believe we should hold reviewers to the criteria, just as they will us. In my opinion, it's not about earning supports by pleasing reviewers but about reaching the standard set by the criteria. If we reach that (and I believe we already do), Raul will ignore irrelevant comments and objections; on the other hand, no matter how many supports we have, the article will not pass if we don't answer valid objections. 
Having said all that, there's been a dire shortage of reviewers at FAC recently, so maybe few people will be interested in commenting. I hope that's not the case, because every article benefits from fresh eyes and a rigorous critique.qp10qp 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this time it will pass. The prose and citations are infinitely better than last time. RedRabbit 07:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plunge time

message: Hi, I'd like to ask for a chance to add an external link to the article about William Shakespeare. It is a link to a scholarly site (it is part of the students' society of William Shakespeare in the Czech Republic) which deals with portraiture of the Elizabethan period and specifically with portraits of Shakespeare. The link is: http://gallery.cmssws.cz/ and the project is called Shakespeare and the Elizabethans Imagined. Thank you so much for considering this issue. 
Janushka p 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are keeping the external links to a minimum, I'm afraid. But thanks for asking. Try an article like Chandos portrait.qp10qp 18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: His characters become more complex and tender as he switches deftly between comic and serious scenes, prose and poetry, and achieves the narrative variety of his mature work.
Can we use a more descriptive word than "tender"? [This was RedRabbit]
:I'd just leave out "and tender". --GuillaumeTell 08:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can leave it out or whatever. But tender is not subsumed within "complex". Some of the recent edits change words that are in the sources I have used. If you have seen Henry IV, pts I and 2, will know that "tender" is the mot juste for a certain new aspect of Shakespeare's characterisation at that time.qp10qp 09:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read part 1 (part 2 is sitting in my bookshelf). Ok. RedRabbit 10:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be unorthodox, but I believe they are his greatest work.qp10qp 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: Perhaps for clarity's sake this sentence:
Two plays not included in the First Folio, Pericles, Prince of Tyre, and The Two Noble Kinsmen, are now accepted as part of the canon, with scholars agreed that Shakespeare made a major contribution to their composition.
Should be altered to read as follows:
Two plays not included in the First Folio, The Two Noble Kinsmen, and Pericles, Prince of Tyre, are now accepted as part of the canon, with scholars agreed that Shakespeare made a major contribution to their composition.
This reinforces that there are two plays instead of there appearing to be a discrepency between the "Two plays" and the inline comma used, especially to an individual unfamiliar with the complete body of Shakespeare's work.  I know this is a nit-picky (and optional) detail, however I would have corrected it myself if the article had not been protected.
74.138.112.181 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; thanks. RedRabbit 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for Clarity

message: If this a FA, why hasn't the FAC page been updated to reflect this? Raul hasn't closed the discussion. I think there has been some kind of mistake. RedRabbit 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the star, pending the decision on the FAC page. RedRabbit 16:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my mistake. RedRabbit 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. We got promoted, in the same edit as The Simpsons! AndyJones 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoorah! Drinks all around, me hearties! Tom Reedy 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yipee! What an accomplishment! Wrad 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA?