Talk:Shakespeare's sonnets

message: I think it's time to shorten this article, (as per WP:SIZE), as it has grown to well over 60 kb.  We can start by (and feel free to add your ideas):
#Shortening info on alternative candidates (most already have their own articles)
#Shortening the enormous introduction
#Can anything else warrant its own article?
AdamBiswanger1 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevant policies (for general reference): WP:CFORK, WP:SS, WP:SIZE. AdamBiswanger1 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say cut all but one selected sonnet. Probably leave sonnet 18. Wrad 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry! I meant to post that here AdamBiswanger1 17:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortening the article

message: Why does the bottom half of the page seem extra indented? Like, 1/8 inch more white space on the left before the menu bar? —ScouterSig 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indent 

message: I noticed that sonnet 29 is not the only sonnet to repeat a rhyme word ('state'). Immediately before it in the sequence, sonnet 28 repeats 'night' (lines 3, 11). I mention it because the uniqueness of 29 is emphasised in the article. Untilangry (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: I'm planning to do some work on the individual Sonnets' articles, mainly standardising them to start with. If anyone wants to comment or help, please do so here. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual pages 

message: Why is the "sonnets" part of the title uncapitalized? C H, Random Middle School Student (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CAPS says "For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless: the title is a proper noun." I don't think this is a proper noun, although if it's usually used as one capitalization could well be appropriate. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about title of article 

message: NOTE: I have reverted the change from "periods" to "full stops." Surely "full stop" is familiar in British English (and yes, Shakespeare is British yada yada yada), however ... given:
# the word "periods" is from the book referenced
# "full stop" will totally confuse Americans (and many Canadians) 
# its use clearly does not imply a true "full stop" in the course of reading if it appears after every word
THEREFORE: I have restored the word "periods." Comments? Questions? Proofreader77 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  of "periods" and "full stops" ... 

message: According to the lede, the sonnets "deal with such themes as...atheism". If the lede is meant to summarize what follows, this shouldn't be here as it is the only mention. 
Lower down, regarding "Mr. W. H.":  "The reality, identity and age of this person remain a mystery and have caused a great deal of speculation as to Shakespeare's implicit bisexuality" Apart from the wording ("reality of this person") the reason why it "cause[s] a great deal of speculation as to Shakespeare's implicit bisexuality" isn't made clear to this reader. Is it Southampton, perhaps?. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted:thanks User:Smatprt. I'm now looking for sources for doubting the "reality" of the dedicatee, but everything I've found so far suggests the opposite: It would have been against Thorpe's nature to waste the opportunity of flattering someone who could do him advantage. Any objections if this were removed as well?--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While (personally) I agree with you on this point as well, I suppose the "reality" reference refers to this line in the article: "In his 2002 Oxford Shakespeare edition of the sonnets, Colin Burrow argues that the dedication is deliberately mysterious and ambiguous, possibly standing for "Who He", a conceit also used in a contemporary pamphlet. He suggests that it may have been created by Thorpe simply to encourage speculation and discussion (and hence, sales of the text)." Also, I do think the "bisexuality" aspect has been commented on by more than one researcher, although it does make some scholars uneasy. I removed it due to a lack of reference, but would not oppose a section on the topic if accompanied by a reliable source. I certainly don't agree with its former placement, as most of the "speculation" is about the identity of the dedicatee and the circumstances surrounding the publication itself.Smatprt (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I won't make any changes in the lede without some meaningful and well-sourced addition in the body. Not soon, so if anyone else wants to take this up, please do! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The possible fictional character the dedicatee has been commented upon, so that should probably stay (though the theory seems far-fetched to me too). The bisexuality theory is derived from the content of the sonnets, not the dedication. Including that in the description of the wording of the dedication would, I'd suggest, just confuse matters. I guess the atheism claim derives from the oft-noted fact that sonnets imply that the only real immortality is to be had from children and literature, and the absence of pious sentiment, but that's a big extrapolation. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Though this may surprise everyone, after looking at the article again (thanks Moonraker), it was apparent that the authorship stuff in the lede was too long and not reflected in the article itself.  I believe I fixed this by moving most of it to its own section, and leaving a single line reference in the lede. Smatprt (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Atheism" in the lede; bisexuality in dedication 

message: This recent addition identifies "Pillars of Solomon's Temple,...sacred images to Freemasons and Rosicrucians" in the dedication. Although it is referenced to a web page maintained by the Rosicrucian Order, is this too far outside mainstream scholarly discussion to be included? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so. If there were more references that showed this theory actually being discussed by other scholars, that would be helpful.  But it appears to rely exclusively on a single source. Smatprt (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It looks like loopylalaland theory to me, and what do we know about this 'electronic journal'? Proofreader77, could you be less eliptical about this book and its relevance. A title might not go amis. Paul B (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse parabolic response ^^ ... My comment meant only that I used to dismiss all such things out of hand ... but a very smart person chose to devote a great deal of time to such things (which included getting special access to archives) and a resulting PhD thesis. While that particular (Keatsian) document will not answer the Shakespearean question here, I thought she might have some insight on the question (or whom to ask) ... and so I've sent an email to current university email (but it is Thanksgiving). Proofreader77 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah Keats, well I guess you mean this book. The historical difference is that Fremasonry certainly existed as an organised movement with established social networks and beliefs in Keats' day. We know it was significant in Mozart's career for example (Mozart and Freemasonry). The problem is that we have no good evidence of this for Shakespeare's day, only the self-crerated myth of ancient continuity that Masons and Rosicrucians asserted for themselves, which is barely more respectable than the Priory of Sion. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks, Paul B. - As I said, "But surely other[s] have more solid footing already." Such are your well-planted feet. (re Priory of Sion - Do you mean Audrey Tautou will never walk on water?!?! ^^) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...sacred images to Freemasons and Rosicrucians" 

message: How disappointing that "authorship question" take virtual top billing in an article about some of world literature's most glorious poetry.  
It must be noted that the "hyphen-equals-pseudonym" claim of the anti-Stratfordians should not be presented in this piece as though it is fact.
It has been eviscerated, e.g. at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html (..."there is no evidence whatsoever that hyphenation in Elizabethan times was ever thought to indicate a pseudonym, and other proper names of real people were also sometimes hyphenated.) HedgeFundBob (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point: there seems no reason why the "authorship question" shouldn't be moved down the page—be WP:BOLD. Is there a single citation that puts the "hyphen-equals-pseudonym" issue into context, thereby guarding against any suggestion of original thinking? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The sentence is actually nonsensical. The phrase "authorship proponents" makes no sense (as opposed to those who argue that the sonnets are natural phenomena perhaps?). The word "notes" implies that this is undisputed fact rather than a theory (or rather made up fantasy as HFB notes). Paul B (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More skirmishing has broken out over evidence in the sonnets demonstrating the author was dead when they were published. WP:ONEWAY would  permit this extended coverage of a fringe theory "only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way" but at present the two refs for the section fall far short of this requirement. As the section stands at the time of posting it seems liable to deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Authorship Questions" Get Top Billing? 

message: Limoux, France, 27/3/10
Dear Mr Barlow,
I have been asked to contact you and hope for some guidance on a section that was included in Shakespeare’s Sonnets in Wikipedia a short while ago.
Many people have said the section added greatly to the entry and we would like to see it returned in the correct and acceptable way, I am writing to ask your help in helping me see its return in due course .
Mr Willby has many citations and appreciation of his work in bringing the sonnets to greater light and understanding for worldly figures as HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales as President of the Royal Shakespeare Company, President Bill Clinton and many more as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Yours sincerely
Steffan Scurfield
Dear Steffan
Shakespeare’s Sonnets section titled “Principal Audio and Audio-Visual Interpretations”.
I am having a great deal of communications from academic colleagues about the loss of this section in Wikipedia.  They have been using it to aide teaching and further understanding of the works to students whose first language is not always English or to help other students articulate, hear the rises and falls, pauses and enunciation, etc. of English at time in the language’s history when it was in a far different form than it is today.	 
I cannot think of any other way of doing this entry other than by giving the reader a guide to the principal audio and audio-visual interpretations that are available to them.
Perhaps Mr Barlow knows a better way?
I believe this entry to be valid for this reason and also as in Elizabethan times, literacy was limited and the oral/aural tradition was far stronger than it is today: the only way for the majority of people to accede to the Sonnets would have been by the spoken word. Even today many people, including the elderly and the blind can only experience this great body of verse through recordings. The purpose of this entry is to serve as a guide to some of the main source material.
Kind regards
Jonathan Willby
Copy of revised entry for Wikipedia, Shakespeare’s Sonnets, please advise..  (Mr Barlow, please do not worry that this is not shown as the correct way of showing links, people, for Wikipedia, I will do that, this i just for content    SS)
Principal Audio and Audio-Visual Interpretations
Complete audio recordings of all the 154 Sonnets by individual readers are quite scarce. Probably the best-known purely audio interpretation of a near-complete collection is that by the legendary British actor, Sir John Gielgud (Caedmon 1963). Another memorable version is that by the English-born screen actor Ronald Colman(multi LP set, date unreported). More recent unabridged recordings have been made by the British actor Simon Callow (HighBridge Co. Oct 2005). The American film actor Stacy Keach has also recently offered his interpretation in a 2 cd set (label unspecified). Other individual complete readings include those by Jack Edwards (Helios/Hyperion, 1988-1991), and by David Butler (In Audio 2005) and Alex Jennings (Naxos 2006).
Audio versions of selected Sonnets by individual readers has been recorded by the actor Anthony Quayle 24 Sonnets, (1956) and by Dame Edith Evans, 20 Sonnets (EMI, early 1960s).
The best known "combined cast" audio versions of all the 154 Sonnets are those made by Dame Judi Dench, Ian McKellen, Michael Williams, Peter Egan, Peter Orrand Bob Peck (Penguin Classics 1995), and by Patrick Stewart, Natasha Richardson, Ossie Davis, Al Pacino, Claire Bloom, Kathleen Turner, Alfred Molina, Eli Wallach and others (AirplayAudio Publishing 2000).
Another complete version exists by a cast of various mainly North American readers, emphasized as being 'in the public domain'. (Librivox 2005/6).
An impressive cast of some 40 former alumni, young and old, of London's Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts perform on an audio rendition of 47 Sonnets, entitled 'When Love Speaks'. (EMI, released 4 February 2003).
The British actor Alan Rickman has recorded his version of Sonnet 130.
An interesting offering for linguists is a disc entitled 'Accents for Actors--Accents of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England which provides "A Shakespeare Sonnet read in 20 different accents of the British Isles" (Clo-lar-Chonnachta, Eire: SAC 1027).
Complete audio-visual interpretations are also scarce and include a version with musical preludes by Jonathan Willby (2006).
Filmed readings of selected Sonnets include a video film entitled: "Shakespeare on Screen: selected Sonnets by Shakespeare" and described as "an educational program that gives an in-depth analysis of fifteen of Shakespeare's Sonnets". The cast of readers comprises the actors Ben Kingsley, Roger Rees, Claire Bloom andJane Lapotaire with critical commentaries by A. L. Rowse, Leslie Fiedler, Stephen Spender, Gore Vidal, Arnold Wesker, Nicholas Humphrey and Roy Strong. (Kenneth S Rothwell and Annabelle Henkin Melzer, 1984).
A video version of 29 of the Sonnets was made, with a commentary, in various pastoral settings: at the breakfast table, over the telephone and as a standup comedy routine (Princeton, N.J-Films for the Humanities and Sciences, 2000)
In the arthouse drama film 'The Angelic Conversion', directed by Derek Jarman, Dame Judi Dench recites a number of the Sonnets (1985).
Musical settings of the sonnets are rare. Igor Stravinsky set Sonnet 8, "Music to hear", in his Three Songs From William Shakespeare. Benjamin Britten also set only one sonnet by Shakespeare, Sonnet 43, as the last part of his Nocturne. Andrzej Czajkowski set seven sonnets. Maurice Johnston set Sonnet 75 "So are you to my thoughts". In 2007 the RSC ran Nothing Like the Sun, a project to set the sonnets to music.[20] Zehnder recorded Sonnet 30 on their CD Broken Train of Thought listed in the liner notes as '30'.
Hi, the only way to have the section restored is to build consensus on the talk page of the article. I have not contributed to wikipedia over the last month as I am in rural Brittany without internet access; I am currently writing from a library. I will not be able to communicate much over the next week, but I suggest that you shorten the section. I do believe that it is worthwhile. Paul B (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare’s Sonnets section titled “Principal Audio and Audio-Visual Interpretations" 

message: Smatprt, your continued POV pushing is becoming tiresome and disruptive. I thought we were past all this but apparently not.
According to WP:ONEWAY, “Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.” ScienceApologist explains this quite thoroughly  on his user page. Note also that he discusses false claims of consensus, in which fringe promoters “might insist that there is ‘no consensus’ for changes that bring an article's text more closely in line with the rules for dealing with pseudoscience”, which is an apt description of your objections. He goes on to say “false claims of consensus are rightly ignored as disruption of the encyclopedia. If you want to have this material restored to the article, then you need to build consensus on the talk page of the article. Until that happens, my reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAQ in Sonnets article 

message: Really, in an article on Shakespeare?
The passage the source supports runs:
:the sonnets, Shakespeare often declares that the sonnets will outlast such earthly things as stone monuments and inscriptions.
Happens to be untrue, whatever the Bright Spark behind the Spark Notes asserts. Sonnet 55 does indeed deploy the Horatian topos, but he grows less confident, with 64,65 and 124. The Spark note improperly generalises Sonnet 55 in short, and should be removed and the passage rewritten by reference to a proper RS on the point. I.e., John Kerrigan, 'Shakespeare's Poems,' in Margreta De Grazia, Stanley W. Wells (eds.) The Cambridge companion to Shakespeare,pp.65-80,  p.77 (here), for example.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spark Notes as sources 

message: If anyone wants to make this a project for a few weeks, by all means have a go and I'll pitch in. My incomplete rewrite of the The Passionate Pilgrim basically just stripped it down to the bare bones and corrected the many errors. I don't have the time I used to have, so I haven't been able to get back to it, but at least the information is accurate, a marked improvement over the previous state of the page. This page could do with a general decluttering also, along with a rational organization. The Shakespeare pages in general need some major rewriting, but there are more things in life than editing Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite? 

message: Shouldn't William Holme be added (and prominently) to the mix:  http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jan/31/shakespeare-sonnets-mr-wh-dedication-mystery
Stanley Wells calls the idea, “better than any other suggestion so far. It’s very interesting.” It would probably be best to cite to the Notes and Queries article, if someone has access to it.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can dig up a copy of the original article, I'll see if I can put together a few words on the idea.  I'm pretty sure "recentism" can be avoided, even though the idea blundered its way into a few news reports.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. W.H. Candidate?

message: Hi. I plan to review and revise Wikipedia's treatment of scansion and meter in the individual sonnet articles. I've posted notes at WT:BARD#Scansion and meter in the sonnets if anyone is interested in commenting. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of scansion and meter 

message: I've replaced the previous list of "Modern Editions" with my bibliographical template:  (which also appears on all 154 individual articles), which includes fuller information and broader coverage. Some older modern editions (Seymour-Smith, Campbell, Rowse, Ingram & Redpath) which were mentioned in this article's list are not included in this template; however, they were also not referenced in this article, so I think the focus on more recent editions is appropriate. Phil wink (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions 

message: kanghon nang le ave te
somdun thekthe lo ne,
chevoiju po ne....
etum ko an lo kachinghon ta
rupha etang phrong,
rupha ju det lo ephan raje kachingbar
ta riro edon de ephan.
lo jui po ne ha chomrongme an
sengve che oi nangne ne pen nang,
nang ke lo ji nang sangman ta dombarim 
adorbar an ta mandunon hemtun pi ke nang.
riro edon de a charnam an ta
tengne det ra som dun pametu dei nang.
nangmunthi ta me ne phan ta 
apor do bi bi ahut ke.
ha chomrongme nang chonghongpo nang phan
ningkan suri suri an ta
pachethan lo nang etum akanghon alam.
end..... Sarkuruengti (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  kanghon:riro edonde lo ephan (poem) 

message: I assume whoever wrote it conflated "Russell Jackson" with "Bertrand Russell". Russell Jackson co-authored a book on Shakespeare w/ Joanthan Bate.
The book cited "The Genius of Shakespeare" contains no occurrence of Bertrand Russell.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.135.106 (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bertrand Russell didn't suggest the misprint theory 

message: For an important article, this is truly dreadful: stuffed with pedantry, repetition, and pointlessness. 2/3 could be blue pencilled without loss. The trouble begins in the very first paragraph, which should succinctly state WHY the sonnets are so famous. That’s the killer point. Their FORM is a secondary point that should be in the body. If you asked 9 people out of 10, WHAT were the sonnets, theyd refer to THE sonnets, and say they are a series of love poems, addressed to a lady and a young man. I can’t believe one has to wade through endless verbiage to get to this point, and it’s not even stated simply and clearly!!! There should be a brief second sentence addressing their historical fame and personal nature.  It can then be stated WS wrote other sonnets. End of first para. For pity’s sake: is it so damn hard to state the bleeding obvious? 2001:8004:CC0:B2D6:25D5:3C34:104C:18BC (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article desperate for editing 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is the apostrophes are fine and there is no policy-based reason to change.  (non-admin closure)  В²C ☎ 12:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 July 2021