Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 2

message: heck no he didnt wear and earing those were for gay people back in those times
? (see the insert)
:Do you have a problem with that?! The Singing Badger 01:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that earrings were not uncommon at the time.  I don't believe there were any homosexual connotations. Phoenixrod 02:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old bill shakspeare's picture 

message: What? No references to influences to today's culture? That's insane! The most popular playwright of all time has no section on movies, music, art, etc, based on his work?
I added a section on Shakespeare in Love, a movie I have heard of, never seen. That's all I can think of at the moment that has influenned him. Get with it Wikipedia!4.240.171.82 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an entire article devoted to his movies and movies about him and this is linked to from the article. See Shakespeare on screen. I also noted that you added some vandalism to the article.--Alabamaboy 18:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: Is April 26, 1564 New style or Old style? If it is old style, then the new style date of May 7 should be added with the OS template.--Fallout boy 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, that's the OS date.--Fallout boy 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baptism date

message: :He may have performed in Latin plays at school, but there is no concrete evidence. The Singing Badger 14:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Shakespeare ever play in plays when he was little 

message: I've just done [this revert]. However, I'm still not happy with this presentation of the date. Firstly it looks ugly. Secondly it doesn't focus on the significance of 23rd April. Is there perhaps some Wikipedia policy about the presentation of dates? I'm copying this same question to the help desk. AndyJones 10:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Shakespeare is not the world's pre-eminent dramatist. This is a partial, anglo-centric statement that does not take into consideration dramatists from non-English or non-European cultures. Changed to "one of the world's pre-eminent dramatists".
*Fair enough, and I haven't reverted you. However can you suggest a non-English language dramatist with comparable impact? AndyJones 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This thread is reminding me of a similar one further down this page (see 'Weasel Words'). Bosola and the anonymous editor are questioning whether Shakespeare is the best dramatist. That's not the issue. We're talking about his reputation here. Middleton, Webster and Marlowe were cool, but they have never achieved a reputation as pre-eminent world dramatist. Shakespeare has. Certainly this wasn't true in his own time, and certainly the spread of Shakespeare across the world is primarily due to 19th century English imperialism, but it doesn't change the fact that today Shakespeare is a well-known name across the world in a way that Kalidasa and Zeami can't match. The Singing Badger 12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute Claims 

message: Shakespeare spent most of his adult life in London, and did all of his commercial and much of his personal writing there.  Most of the London he had lived in burned in the Great Fire of 1666.  No one knows how much of the private-sector correspondence of Shakespeare and his contemporaries had survived up until that point.  Bigturtle 17:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fire

message: hi, 
i was wondering if you guys ever heard of this quote by william shakespeare " let go the dogs of war ____________________" please help me complete it
: You may be thinking of this quote from Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I:  "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!".  Cheers JackofOz 05:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you mean William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, the 1996 movie directed by Baz Luhrmann?  Yes, I saw it.  Anville 21:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt the questioner was asking about any one film version.  You wouldn't watch the same film over and think it might turn out different than the last time you saw it.  They were comparing different film and/or stage versions (they said 'play').  The hand twitching is part of the dramatic tricks that stage and film directors use to heighten the tension - the audience is aware Juliet is not dead but Romeo isn't.  For those who don't know how the story ends (and even those who do), it's a great "if only" moment.  There's no such direction in the play itself, by the way. JackofOz 22:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Have a look at our article on the play.  JackofOz 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and yes.  It's best to direct personal questions to my talk page.  JackofOz 03:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "To err is human, to forgive divine" (That's Alexander Pope, by the way, not Shakespeare) JackofOz 12:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  help me complete a quote 

message: I suspect this is an editing error:
:Lady Magdalen Montague, a well known Catholic and a bulwark of English Catholicism was a prominent patron of the Bard, and is even found within his plays Romeo and Juliet, A Winter's Tale and Comedy of Errors.
But can someone confirm that? The (apparent) assertion that Catholicism is found in A Winter's Tale is plain wrong. The religion is supposedly ancient Greek. Some speculate that the 'magic statue' is based on the Virgin Mary, but as noted on the play's talk page there is no 'magic statue', and merely echoing the concept of a shrine in the play doesn't make him Catholic. (Any more than the play provides evidence that Shakespeare believed in the Delphic Oracle.)--Jack Upland 10:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't quite parse what that sentence is trying to say.  The name "Montague" in Romeo and Juliet is an Anglicization of the Montecchi in Luigi da Porto's version (circa 1530), last I heard.  Anville 10:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suspect the sentence is (or contains) a mistake. I'll remove it, pending someone coming here with a source &/or a correction. AndyJones 13:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. He was a whoreson mad fellow! AndyJones 11:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholicism 

message: Just to let everyone know, there is now a new Portal:Shakespeare, written by User:James.kendall. Feel free to contribute. --Khoikhoi 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New portal 

message: I just did a comparison of the current version of this page with its version from a few days ago. The "Works" section has disappeared. Is that deliberate or a piece of vandalism? Sorry to raise it here, but I don't have the time to investigate in detail. AndyJones 13:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism that got missed in the unceasing flow of vandalism. I've fixed it. The Singing Badger 14:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing happened a month or two back. A vandal deleted an entire section of the article and none of us noticed for at least two weeks. That's the downside to repeated high levels of vandalism. It appears to me that this is one of the most vandalized articles on Wikipedia (I believe George W. Bush is the top one).--Alabamaboy 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... is there an upside to high vandalism levels? :S The Singing Badger 16:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Good point. Don't know why I used that cliche to open that sentence :-).--Alabamaboy 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works 

message: I think everyone will agree that the semi-protection has been a success, with zero vandalism since this was done on March 16. That said, the policy of Wikipedia is to not let articles be semi-protected indefinately. I'm going to remove the protect in a moment and we'll see if the anonymous vandalism returns at the previous high levels. If it does, I'll semi-protect it again after a day or two. If I have to semi-protect again, I'll leave the protection up for a longer time.
BTW, my theory on why this articles gets hit so much is because there are so many high school students reading Shakespeare. Guess the Bard is still touching a nerve with kids :-).--Alabamaboy 16:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely support the semi-protection. If you semi-protect the article again, maybe leave it up until school term ends? (i.e. June?) The Singing Badger 16:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The first vandalism after semi-protection was lifted occurred after only 18 minutes.  The Singing Badger 17:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll aim for doing that. In some ways, this is a stategic chess move. By showing that we tried to not semi-protect the article all the time, we strengthen the case for leaving the semi-protect up for a longer period of time in the future.--Alabamaboy 17:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only question, really, is whether I can make good edits to a protected page? AndyJones 13:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only protected from anonymous or new users, so you'll be fine. The Singing Badger 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe vandalism has reached earlier levels. I'm going to semi-protect the article again.--Alabamaboy 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good choice. Just to give some figures, I counted approximately 40 vandalisms between 21 and 24 of March. We also had more than one instance of vandalism being missed going unnoticed for a while due to the high volumes. I think this justifies keeping semi-protection on permanently (or at least until the schools are on vacation)... The Singing Badger 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agreed, good choice. I tend to think that semi-protection is going to slowly drift in the direction of preventing new users from editing articles though. I can see a day when anon IPs can't edit, only registered users, and only that after they've been registered for a few days and confirmed their registration with a valid e-mail address bounce back. Note; I'm not advocating that, just stating that I think that's where we are ultimately headed. --Durin 00:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I disagree. This article has a level of vandalism that compares with the Bush article. As you may have seen from the history here, I removed the semi-protect not too long after the first protection period and kept it off for several days to see if the vandalism would drop down to a lower level. It did not so I semi-protected again and had planned on removing the sp next week to see what happened. The consensus of editors here is to keep the article semi-protected for long periods. That said, we'll see what happens now that it is unprotected. I will, though, semi-protect it again if vandalism jumps back to previous levels and if the consensus of the article's editors is to do so. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 

message: I've been asked to source the contention that older women may have been played by men.  It will probably remain "boys" since my source is an online scholarly Shakespeare discussion list (SHAKSPER) which includes more than a few academes, and which I participate in.  The question sometimes comes up (http://www.shaksper.net/archives/1996/0204.html) and is considered at least a possibility by some.  But since it isn't an actual publication, it probably doesn't count. Carlo 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The people on the discussion thread are academics, but it remains the case that they're just saying 'I think...' without providing any evidence. To the best of my knowledge there is no concrete evidence for men playing women, only boys. But if you can find anything, add it in! The Singing Badger 04:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was at a conference in Stratford a couple of weeks ago, where the lecturer made the point that the "boys" of the acting companies would have been aged about 14 to 24, so the perception I think we get from the use of the word "boys" - that female parts were played by youngsters whose voices had not yet broken - is wrong. I'll see if I can find a source for this. Also, Carlo, there's no reason not to mention this thread at Shaksper and ask for a source there, if you like. Give them a link to this page. It seems logical to me, from modern productions, that older women would have been played by men not boys. I've seen a male Mistress Overdone, for example: not a part you'd give to a youth. AndyJones 12:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Andy's point is important, although much of the debate over this question involves those who believe that roles like Cleopatra and Lady Macbeth are so sophisticated that they could only have been performed by mature men (as opposed to teenagers or twentysomethings). This is a popular belief, but there's no evidence for it. Books on the subject include Michael Shapiro's  Children of the Revels and Joy Leslie Gibson's Squeaking Cleopatras, if anyone has access to them. The Singing Badger 13:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Men playing older women

message: I have repaired the religion bit as best I can and removed the quote from the franky quite awful Catholic encyclopedia that said atheism was rampant. It makes it sound like a disease. It is due to a misunderstanding of the culture of early seventeenth century England. Protestant religious tracts were always mentioning atheism as a danger but there are few recorded incidences of what we would call atheism. Even in Marlowe it may have been an attempt to blacken his name. I put some information in there. Maybe someone wants to try to make it read better.
: I had a go, but this section is still bloody awful. If anyone has time to check some sensible biographies of Shakespeare such as Park Honan's or Samuel Schoenbaum's, some better documentation of this section could be provided. The Singing Badger 13:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, forgive my rudeness, and please return the stuff that you think is important. But since you seem to have the facts at your fingertips, please give proper citations (with page numbers) when you are quoting the authors you cite. Proper referencing is what the section badly needs, so that others can double-check the information you provide. The Singing Badger 16:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, couldn't agree more - let's see if we can improve this page at least! Solid citations are one way to prevent partisan editing. By the way, if you type four tildes after your messages ( ~~~~ ) it will automatically sign the message with your name and the date, so that people can distinguish your posts from those of others. The Singing Badger 20:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to reinsert the Catholic Encyclopedia item because I see no reason to delete it. The item is referenced and factual and provides a nice counterpoint to the arguement that Shakespeare was Catholic. I also hope you will register for an account here. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dunno about the Catholic Encyclopedia item; it begs a lot of questions, e.g. what 'rampant atheism', and is there rampant atheism in Shakespeare's plays? Sure, it's 'referenced' in the sense that it's in a book, but we need something less generalized - I'm sure people have argued that Shakespeare was not religious, but we need a more helpful quote than that one. :( The Singing Badger 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion section 

message: I have just finished converting all of the citations in this article to the  the new  element. (more details at Wikipedia:Footnotes) While the technical background on why this citation style works can be long and complicated, here's the easy thing to do: If you cite something, write up your citation as you want it to look in the footnotes, place <ref> at the start of the note,  at the end, then place the whole thing at the exact point in the article where you want the citation. Nothing else needs to be done. See examples within the article for how this is done. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also hope everyone interested in this article will vote for its inclusion in the Wikipedia Article Improvement Drive. Let's get this article to Featured Article status.--Alabamaboy 20:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New citations style 

message: Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry (www DOT worldofbiography DOT com/0061%2DWilliam%20Shakespeare William Shakespeare Biography) probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 
*I think I'd revert that as linkspam. They have lots of ads, but not much useful information: far less than Wikipedia has, for instance. AndyJones 15:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World of Biography

message: This should not be a good article because it completly skips over the Romantic Plays.  These plays are put under the comedy section.  Tell me how Pericles, The Tempest, and the few others are listed as comedy.  They should be under the Romances or "tragicomedy".
: They're listed there because it follows their classification in the First Folio. However you're right that romances need to be mentioned there. The Singing Badger 20:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The categorization is correct and romances shouldn't be added if we follow the traditional classification. Comedy and Tragedy in the Shakespearean context does not mean the same as their modern usage. A Shakespearean comedy is a play which has a happy ending for the main character(s) - the play need not be funny throughout. A tragedy is one which shows the downfall and unhappy ending of a main character or a social situation with a moral flaw. Richard III, one of the history play (histories = Shakespeare's plays about real Kings of England), is typically considered as a tragedy but has a lot of humour in it. Romances could fall into either comedy or tragedy... Romeo and Juliet would be a tragedy; A Midsummer's Night Dream would be a comedy Bwithh 23:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ps if the original writer of the comment here had actually clicked on the wikilinks located directly above to the list of the categorized plays and read the linked articles about comedies, tragedies etc., he/she would have found that he/she didnt need to post this comment about this being a bad article which skips the "Romantic Plays" Bwithh 23:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: They are funnier than Dante's Divine Comedy, which is a comedy in the same sense. Still, there should be some discussion of the categorisation, and of modern categories such as Romance and Tragicomedy. Paul B 23:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't support the idea of "modern categorization" in this way, but if it did happen, the traditional way should remain the priority as this is the established and widely accepted scheme both historically and in current scholarship. Also, Dante's Divine Comedy was written 300 years earlier than Shakespeare's plays, in another language and cultural context - the sense of humour for that text's time can likely even less familiar to us than Shakespeare's humour (see Bear baiting). So the question of which is funnier is more POV-problematic than usual.  Bwithh 23:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The sense of humour is irrelevant. That was a joke. The Divine Comedy is a comedy because it all ends as it should, and even the people in hell get justly treated. It's not because they all laughed at it 600 years ago, but now it's just slightly less hilarious than Our American Cousin. Paul B 00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, tragicomedy is not a modern category, it was well known in Shakespeare's time. But the compilers of the First Folio chose not to use it. The Singing Badger 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem using "Romance" and a category.  We don't actually use the First Folio Categories.  The Folio lists "Cymbeline" as a tragedy (it obviously isn't) and doesn't classify "Troilus and Cressida" anywhere.  Cymbeline, The Tempest, Pericles, Kinsmen, Winter's Tale and (IMO) Henry VIII are significantly different than the comedies, and are Romances.  It also might be okay to list Troilus, All's Well and Measure for Measure separately, as Problem Plays. Carlo 01:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that some categorizations are debatable: as you said Henry VIII could be argued as a romance and some people regard 'Twelfth Night and even Comedy of Errors as romances too. Some people regard Hamlet as a Problem Play, some don't. The more one tries to acommodate different ideas, the more complicated the list gets. That's why it's simpler to stick with the Folio attributions, even though they're not perfect, and discuss the complications on the individual pages of each play. The Singing Badger 13:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with Singing Badger on this. It is not a valid criticism of this page to say that it organises the plays according to method x when the person criticising prefers method y. A division according to the Folio designations is most widely known and accepted. AndyJones 15:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Romances

message: I would dispute that Shakespeare is considered the "British" national poet, he is certainly considered England's national poet, for good reason, but there can be no doubt that Robert Burns is considered the national poet of Scotland and Shakespeare would not be recognised by many Scots as their national poet. I would like to amend the article accordingly. Any confusion is understandable as the UK (which I assume "British" is meant to refer to) is made up of four nations which although not sovereign each have their own national culture and institutions. I would say that most people's perception would be that Shakespeare is the national poet of England and Burns of Scotland, with neither superseding each other as the national (or super-national) poet of Britain, i don't know if either of them would be happy with the title as Burns had a tendency towards Scottish nationalism and anti-union sentiment, and Shakespeare would never have heard of the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson85 (talk • contribs) 
::It's possible for there to be more than one national poet e.g. Poland. Shakespeare would not have heard of the UK, but he certainly accepted the notion of the unity of the island of Great Britain (it's not "this sceptred isle, minus Scotland and Wales"). Furthermore, in 1603, King James VI of Scotland was crowned King James I of England in what was known as the Union of the Crowns (a precursor to the 1707 Act of Union between Scotland and England). Of course 1606 is during Shakespeare's lifetime, and perhaps the most famous Shakespeare play, Macbeth was specifically intended to flatter James VI/I, and it was specially presented to the king by Shakespeare in 1606 (James was a direct descendent of one of the play's characters). King James would become patron of Shakespeare's theater company, which would become known as the King's Men. Also, the article text already says "English or British" Bwithh 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Benson85 on this, and I'd be quite happy for the article to say "English" in this context. AndyJones 15:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly apologies for not signing my previous comment, secondly, I appreciate your points and I am aware that Shakespeare was as prolific in Jacobean times as he was in the Elizabethan era. However I still do not believe that dedicating a play to a foreign born king, or once writing (however poetically) about "this sceptred isle" qualifies him as a/the national British poet, nor do I think we can guess at his real political views, he was good at keeping the man/woman in charge happy (as well as many others, of course). I agree with your point that there can be more than one national poet, in my opinion England has numerous who are more than worthy of the title (William Blake being my preferred choice). And in Scotland there are pretenders to Burns' throne, William Dunbar, James Hogg...
The article text saying "English or British" also hints at the common mistake that the two are synonymous. To counter this I would propose a compromise with something along the lines of "English (perhaps even British) national poet". If you feel that is a fair comment then I believe we should amend it accordingly. Although I would still much prefer it just to say English, and I do not believe that diminishes Shakespeare’s work.
On another note I would also question the relevance of the Acts of Union 1707 to Shakespeare, the circumstances that led to that treaty were far more complex than a mere continuation of the Union of the Crowns as the article on the Union itself discusses.Benson85 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair point, but I meant that the Ancient universities of Scotland is a term used referring to the structure, governance and administration as well as the degrees that they award, each of the Ancient Universities is governed by a tripartite system of General Council, University Court, and Academic Senate, as defined by the Universities (Scotland) Acts. Each also has a Students' Representative Council as required by statute. The University of Dundee, which was only chartered in 1967 (with it's earliest history dating back to just 1881 as a University college) is one of Ancient universities of Scotland, governed under the Universities (Scotland) Acts. In Scotland the terms ancient and modern when referring to Universities mean a different thing so that the University of Strathclyde, chartered in 1964, is modern where as the University of Dundee, charterd three years later, is ancient. Confusing, but worth a mention. Benson85 21:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: > I am not British or English. What I don't understand from the article or this talk page is that why he is called an "...English poet and playwright" (in the very first line in fact), and not a "British" poet or playwright ?--69.71.132.100 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was born in 1564, before the Act of Union, so England and Scotland were two separate countries. At that time the country he was born in was called "England" (it would now be "the United Kingdom"). This causes no confusion to modern readers since England is still a nation and the two places associated with Shakespeare (Stratford-Upon-Avon and London) are both in England. AndyJones 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British national poet 

message: Just a small point but to say that his "combine popular appeal with strong charactorization ect" is just bad writing. Surely popular appeal is the result of these combinations not part of them. It's like saying Micheal Jacksons songs combine huge sales with strong hooks and strong productions ect. It may seem petty but if Wikipedia's going to scale the heights we all want it to inelegant clumsy writing isn't going to help. Also the bit about him bartering camels to pay for rolling paper is just plain arse. Eddyboy
:Um, hello Eddyboy. Just wondering if you were familiar with mainstream popular culture and its appeal in 21st century Britain at all. Bwithh 21:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eddyboy has a point, this is rather waffly language. Of course, it's not easy to write potted summaries of why Shakespeare was a genius. It would be better if we could find some quotations from well-known scholars rather than try to write our own. The Singing Badger 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular appeal and strong characterization

message: The article Mr. W.H. could do with some input from regular contributors here, as an edit-war is currently brewing. Paul B 11:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr W.H.

message: I am disambiguating the Power page, that is, I am changing links to Power to the most appropriate article. This article contains this passage:
:The earlier plays range from broad comedy to historical nostalgia, while the middle-period plays tend to be grander in terms of theme, addressing such issues as betrayal, murder, lust, power, and ambition. By contrast, his late romances feature redemptive plotlines with ambiguous endings and the use of magic and other fantastical elements. 
I believe that the word 'power' in the above passage should refer to the article on Power (sociology). As a new editor I lack the authority to change it myself. I request that someone with authority change the link to read as follows:
: power
Gerry Ashton 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Gerry, it's fixed now; sorry you weren't able to fix it yourself, the page is protected owing to excessive vandalism. The Singing Badger 20:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request link change

message: There have recently been some excellent biographical additions to this article. However, shouldn't they be over at Shakespeare's Life? AndyJones 12:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent bigraphical additions 

message: The text reads "William Shakespeare (also spelled Shakspere, Shaksper, and Shake-speare, due to the fact that spelling in Elizabethan times was not fixed and absolute[7]) was born in Henley Street, in Stratford-upon-Avon." How do you know? Another article just calls this an assumption. Sciurinæ 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an assumption. There is no surviving video of the event. Paul B 07:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nor is there any other record. - Nunh-huh 16:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: It was confirmed this week that the Doctor will encounter Shakespeare at some point during the third series of Doctor Who. Is it worth adding this information to the article, or should it go in the Shakespere On Screen one? Source The_B 01:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should go in the Doctor Who one. It tells us nothing about Shakespeare, so it certainly doesn't belong in this article. - Nunh-huh 02:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree with Nunh-huh. It could also be added to the Shakespeare on screen article.--Alabamaboy 12:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with adding it to Doctor Who. I definitely don't think it belongs here. At the moment, I'm against adding it to Shakespeare on Screen, too. That page is big enough with performances and adaptations, without starting to add minor references. I guess it depends on how prominent Shakespeare proves to be in the story, when it's released. (That page does mention the "dome" Blackadder.) AndyJones 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a case for restricting the coverage of Shakespeare on screen to screen adaptations of the plays only, and creating William Shakespeare in popular culture for things like this, the Blackadder skit or Shakespeare in Love? HAM 15px 11:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who 

message: I suggest adding Shakespeare's imdb.com page (yes, he does have one, at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000636/) to the list of external links because it's a useful list of film and television adaptations of his works, one of which goes back to 1899.  I'd add it myself, but the Protected status prevents. BryanEkers 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already down there at the bottom of the Shakespeare on screen page. --GuillaumeTell 15:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB.com page 

message: If my son asked me about Shakespeare, I think I would explain him myself rather than direct my son to this article. The article states that Shakespeare wrote plays 400 years ago, but if my son wanted to know more, many of the most obvious facts aren't there. First, I would show him an example of a page Shakespeare wrote. Next, I would point out that the words are hard to read because he used words like the King James Bible (see Early Modern English) - not because Shakespeare was showing off but because everybody used to talk that way. Next, I would show him Shakespeare's iambic pentameter - dih DAH dih DAH dih DAH dih DAH dih DAH, the QUA-li-TY of MER-cy IS not STRAIN'D. He didn't do that to show off either - he did it because they didn't have video recorders, so the whole play had to be memorized, and the rhythm made it easier. If someone forgot a line, the play had to wait for a prompter to whisper it to the actor.
None of the above is in the article. It isn't even in the Shakespeare's plays link! The edit page forbids adding new material because the page is long enough, but that objective could be met by moving some existing material down to more specific articles. In particular, the long paragraph that speculates that Shakespeare was gay and concludes he probably wasn't, could be reduced to a few words and a link to the complete story. I would think a Shakespeare article would be mostly about his work because the rest of his story wouldn't matter otherwise. And what we do write about his sex life should be more about Anne Hathaway than anyone else, simply because there is much wider agreement that that relationship really happened. I'm not volunteering because edits like this are my more normal contribution, but I didn't see a comment quite like this in the discussion above. Art LaPella 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to point out to your son that, believe it or not, plays are actually still performed today, and it is not necessary to have a video recorder to enjoy them. And that any play he attends would by necessity have been memorized by the actors, and it would be memorized whether or not it was in prose, poetry, or any specific meter. - Nunh-huh 20:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, although I'm not sure if he already knows that. My point was that at least iambic pentameter should be mentioned in a Shakespeare article. Art LaPella 21:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that I would concur. And such a metric treatment should exceed by far - indeed, eclipse in scope, precede in place - the space we give to foolish notions of Baconian sort. - Nunh-huh 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And worth a mention too is that the iambs, as used by Shakespeare, poet-like may vary - far more ingeniously than those we hear from tedious would-be Shakespeares like young Kit. --GuillaumeTell 00:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I also think the religion section is disproportionately big - that is, a sentence to say some think he was Catholic but most say he was Anglican, with a link to the rest of the story. Art LaPella 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: mmmm....Anne Hathaway....just to note, you are free to add things.  Any note saying "don't edit because the page is too long" is merely advisory. john k 19:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing the obvious

message: Copying the following from my talk pageAndyJones 20:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...was an English poet and playwright, generally considered to be the greatest writer of the English language."
I was thinking that being that he is probably the most famous (and brilliant) artist of all time, this should be mentioned in the first paragraph, rather than calling him merely a poet and playwright.  Take a look at the opening sentence of Einstein.  Paradoxically, two sentences later, the sentence "...has a reputation as the greatest writer of the English Language..." remains.  (I see those two sentences as quite similar)
What do you think about putting it back? AdamBiswanger1 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Reputation

message: We are not in the business of portraying Stephen King, Dr. Suess and William Shakespeare as equals.  Saying that Shakespeare is generally regarded as one of the greatest writers who ever lived is not a case of "weasel words", nor does it require citation.  It is common knowledge, as in the opening sentences of the articles on Einstein, Rembrandt, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.  No question about this one.  The elimination of so-called weasel words does nothing but understate the man's significance.  And if some people still insist on a bland, objective statement such as "...was an English playwright" because of WP:NPOV, then this is most certainly a time for WP:IAR if there ever was one. "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them." AdamBiswanger1 20:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In fact, I don't fully agree with Wikipedia's policy on weasel words. When evidence is overwhelming like in the case of Shakespeare, I think it is perectly fine to say he is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language. Not saying that would definitely understate his significance. - Cribananda 01:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you guys having trouble sourcing this? If the evidence is so overwhelming, surely it would be possible to find a source? Ten sources? A hundred sources? Verifiability isn't negotiable: it's at the absolute heart of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Any comment you can only justify by citing WP:IAR or complaining that wikipedia's policies are wrong has no place here. Find a source. AndyJones 10:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy, you got me wrong, may be I wasn't clear - I don't support non-verifiable claims. Of course claims should be sourced. I am only saying use of words that are given as examples in the weasel words page should not necessarily preclude a sentence. Sometimes is widely regarded as could be the best way of saying it.  - Cribananda 13:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Am I missing something. When we had this same discussion months ago, a number of sources were added to the lead to support the claim that "Shakespeare now has a reputation as the greatest writer in the English language, as well as one of the greatest in Western literature, and the world's pre-eminent dramatist." To support that claim we referenced the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Shakespeare, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia article on Shakespeare, and the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia article on Shakespeare.--Alabamaboy 11:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not verifiable, of course, that Shakespeare is the greatest writer of the English language.  It is most certainly verifiable that he is generally considered to be such. And people saying that he is such are certainly not basing it on "speculation."  They are stating their opinion, which is something completely different.  And one can certainly make objective statements about what people's opinions are. john k 19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Other than quibbling with ("speculation" vs. "opinion"), I think we agree.  But just to beat a dead horse for a moment, I was not referring to authors or other sources claiming that Shakespeare is their personal choice as the greatest writer, but more authoritative biographical or encyclopedic sources "speculating" that he is generally regarded as the greatest writer of the English language.  That would not be considered opinion, but speculation. AdamBiswanger1 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why the opening sentence says "regarded" as the greatest writer (and so on). The article has always used words such as "regarded," "has a reputation as..." and does not say that Shakespeare "is" the greatest writer.--Alabamaboy 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the opening sentence