Talk:Sexuality of William Shakespeare

message: Pardon me for saying but I think this is PC revisionist tosh. Jm butler 19:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it could be responded that denying the homoeroticism in a hundred sonnets about a beautiful young man is panicky right-wing blustering. We can argue like that all day. The point is to be rational.  The Singing Badger 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Snap, snap, as the kids say!  Very nicely put, good Badger.  Anville 15:22, 31 October 2005 
"(I)t iis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." This is political claptrap and the article should be eliminated. At most it deserves two lines in a primary article. Wiley Poster (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

text: And what political end is served may I ask? Paul B (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Premise

message: The title leaves something to be desired. Perhaps Sexuality of William Shakespeare would be more appropriate? — Dan | Talk 00:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to that. The Singing Badger 01:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter to me either way but I think it is splitting hairs. If we change it, though, we should wait until there isn't a link to it from the main page (and be sure to make a redirect from the old page).--Alabamaboy 01:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also add I wish this article hadn't been put on the main page as a DYK. When I split it off from the main Shakespeare article, I had cleaned it up and organized it some but I don't think it was ready for all the attention it has received. Thanks to everyone who has been editing it over the last few hours. --Alabamaboy 01:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm confused. Why would there come a time when there is no link to here from the main Shakespeare page? And what's a DYK? Pardon my bewildered ignorance. :) The Singing Badger 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone selected the article as a Do You Know item for the front page (purple box on the right, under "In the News.") This is why the article has been getting so many edits. I just meant that we should wait to change the title, if we do, until there isn't a direct link from the main Wikipedia home page. Usually the DYK links go off the main page within a day or two.--Alabamaboy 01:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh.... blimey. Thanks for the info! Clearly I'm not enough of a Wikipediholic to know such things... :) The Singing Badger 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Since nothing is known about Shakepeare's sexuality other than that he married and had three children, the title of the article should be Speculation about the sexuality of William Shakespeare. TheScotch (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I added in information about Shakespeare's Will which is often cited in this debate. --Waterspyder 01:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would be good to provide a reference to this Professor Shledon so we know who he is and where you read his opinion. There are many examples of Elizabethan actors making personal bequests to each other in wills, so evidence is needed that it was unusual. Please restore your comment if you wish, but the way it was expressed seemed peculiar to me. Also, please don't spam us with Oxfordian theory, this isn't the place for it.The Singing Badger 11:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to do work on the Oxfordian theory, go to Shakespearean authorship. You will also find on that page a link to an article just on Oxfordian theory. And, just FYI, the Shakespearean authorship already branches off from the main William Shakespeare article. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also features certain points from the will. I just find it odd that a simple theory that has been presented regarding rings would cause such criticism when the entire debate regarding Shakespeare's sexuality is speculation. Are his sonnets really evidence? Is he decision not to be buried with his wife evidence? Are the rings evidence? Is his portrayal of sexuality a mark of a liberal mind, or simply bawdy humour? I don't know. I studied Shakespeare for 2 years at University and I could not make a definitive statement on the matter. I doubt that unless someone comes across a new body of evidence, no one will be able to make this assertion. What I am attempting to do is to provide yet another theory that has been presented in the past that can be neither proven nor disproven with modern knowledge, as is much of the other material on this page. The theory of the rings is not something that Professor Sheldon necessarily adheres to, but it is certainly a theory that people adhere to in certain academic circles. Heck, Professor Sheldon also showed us some of the "proofs" of the true authorship of Shakespeare which people adhere to, some of which are based ont he number of buttons on Shakespeare's bust. Just because a professor tells you it's out there doesn't mean he believes it which is why I'm not going to present his name as anything other than the source of information, like a tv or radio program. If it really irks you all to such a large degree, then I suppose you might as well remove it. Just because you think its ludicrous does not mean that there are not a significant number of people who believe it. If you want more information on it, I will have to get in touch with my former Professor, unless you accept lecture material.
--Waterspyder 15:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will's Will 

message: An editor has been replacing "homosexual" with "homoerotic", saying that the former is an anachronistic term. I did not realize that "homoerotic" was an Elizabethan term. -Will Beback 00:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think s/he's been taking rather too literally the idea that "homosexuality" did not exist as a concept at this time. That does not mean that it did not exist as an experience, or even as an orientation/preference. Still, I think I prefer "homoerotic" to the nonsensical term "homosocial". Paul B 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we can talk about homosexuality in animals, which presumably never read Kertbeny, perhaps "anachronistic" is not the best choice. "Misleading" is a better way to put it, since it is liable to evoke preconcieved notions which are likely to be anachronistic. Haiduc 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I know what you're trying to say, and it makes some sense. I don't really object to the edits, it was just the descriptions of them which made no sense. Carry on. -Will Beback 08:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronistic terms 

message: While reading up on this I cam across an abstract claiming "The poems directed to the youth have a long history of strategic critical neglect, allocation to an otherwise virtually empty genre of male friendship poems. More recently, however, they have been generally regarded as homoerotic poems." I find the suggested evolution from friendship to erotism interesting, and also I am intrigued by the claim that now the poems are "generally" thought to be homoerotic. Is Chandler's synopsis accurate, as far as others here know? Haiduc 00:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert on sonnet criticism, but Katherine Duncan-Jones's introduction to the 1997 Arden edition (Arden is a highly respected series of Shakespeare editions) includes a lengthy discussion of the long history of scholars who have tried to explain away the sonnets as 'friendship poems'. In response to the claim that many Elizabethan men had written passionate poetry to their friends, Duncan-Jones simply says "They had not" (p. 33). I think scholars are increasingly acknowledging this (although obviously not everyone). The Singing Badger 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern interpretations 

message: The following passage has been added, without citation:
In Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio's speech is littered with homosexual imagery: he talks of 'open arses' and 'poppering pear's (i.e. the penis and scrotum) and the 'blind bow boy's butt shaft'. His famous 'Queen Mab' speech is an attempt to woo Romeo, which Romeo doesn't understand, leading leading the frustrated Mercutio to say that Romeo's 'bosom' is 'frozen'.
The "blind bow boy's butt-shaft" is of course cupid's arrow, which has pierced Romeo with love of Juliet. The expression is typical of the crude language associated with Mercutio in these passages, in which his semi-pornographic imagery is set against Romeo's "romantic" language. The other lines are in this speech:
If love be blind, love cannot hit the mark.
Now will he sit under a medlar tree, 
And wish his mistress were that kind of fruit
As maids call medlars, when they laugh alone.
Romeo, that she were, O, that she were
An open et caetera, thou a poperin pear!
Romeo, good night: I'll to my truckle-bed;
This field-bed is too cold for me to sleep:
Come, shall we go? (Act 2, scene 1)
Of course the context is explicitly heterosexual. Mercutio is saying that Romeo wishes that "his mistress" were a medlar fruit, which was supposed to resemble the female genitals, and that he, Romeo, were a fruit that resembles male genitals, so that they could have sex in the orchard with the other fruit. 
The reference to wooing and to a "frozen bosom" is is this passage,
True, I talk of dreams,  
Which are the children of an idle brain,  
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,  
Which is as thin of substance as the air  
And more inconstant than the wind, who wooes  
Even now the frozen bosom of the north,  
And, being anger’d, puffs away from thence,  
Turning his face to the dew-dropping south. (Act I, Scene iv)
You can argue that this refers to Mercutio's attempts to convince Romeo of the valuelessness of dreams, but it seems a bit of a stretch to say that the Queen Mab speech was an attempt to seduce Romeo. The other passage is explicitly sexual, so I suppose one could argue that there is a homoerotic subtext there, especially as the last line refers to Mercutio's exclusion from the orchard-bed. But we cannot say that this is simply what the verse directly says, since it doesn't, and in any case we need a citation from a scholar for homoerotic readings. Paul B 09:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercutio

message: The (London) Times today features a remarkable new portrait from the Cobbe Collection which scholars have confirmed is the original of the famous portrait in the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2262981,00.html) As it shows Shakespeare as a younger man, I think this would be a more appropriate image for this page, especially as the Chandos portrait currently displayed is already reproduced on the main Shakespeare page. Also, I think the other recently discovered Cobbe portrait of Southhampton as a young man is a match for it (PDF here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2002/04/20/obs.ore.020421.005.pdf) and should replace the current portrait on the page. Yes/no? Engleham 10 July, 2006
:There are three images recognised as likely to be portraits of WS. This is not one of them, as the very article you cite makes clear. On your other changes, it's worth noting several points. Whether some individuals identified themselves as exclusively same-sex oriented is not the same as a broader cultural recognition of such an identity. Hence the discussion of the usefulness of terms such as homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual remains pertinent. On "sodomy", don't forget that this was not construed as a distinctively homosexual practice, indeed Pietro Aretino's Lust Sonnets, which repeatedly recommend the practice, are exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Paul B 12:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imagery

message: Does any of this actually matter? As far as I can see, there are only two reasons for discussing it at all:
* To be able to hold up Shakespeare as a gay icon and say 'Look! One of the most respected artisits in the world was gay! Being gay's great!'
* To be able to say Shakespeare was a deviant pervert whose works should be banned.
Both of these are pointless. True acceptance of a group of people in society comes when it doesn't matter what you are. Discussions like this just make the respective camps look foolish in front of the vast majority of people who simply don't care.
Shakespeare's gift to humanity was a brilliant set of works. Enjoy them for what they are. Don't try to make them what you want them to be. 195.92.43.117 09:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a subject in which both scholarly and popular literature exists. Indeed all Shakespeare's non-dramatic poems are explicitly and primarily about sex and desire, so it is central to his literary art. Paul B 09:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could lead to a better understanding of his work, as compared to edited versions which have truly perverted his works, so to speak. Kechvsf 08:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete irrelavance of the subject

message: I've updated the article with info on Shakespeare's possible heterosexual affairs, added references, and used the term "possible" throughout the article to achieve a more NPOV wording. Let me know what people think.--Alabamaboy 14:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One or two points. I don't think Shakespeare in Love should be cited as evidence of anything, though it might be mentioned in connection to the Manningham anecdote, since the film briefly refers to it in the brothel scene, where the "William the Conquerer" punch-line is used. The anecdote is essentially a dirty joke. It may or may not be based on any real incident. At the most it suggests that S was thought to be the kind of guy who would, as it were, take an opportunity to get-off with a theatre groupie. I prefer the "Sexual identities" header to the "Bi-sexual" one, as it emphasises the fact that sexual orientation was not a clearly defined concept at the time. This stuff about rings has been around for a while, but it's totally uncited. Is there anyone who actually thinks that this indicates bisexuality? It seems like a projection of modern ideas about the significance of rings. Straight guys don't buy eachother rings these days, but this is now; that was then. I think that should go altogether. Paul B 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, the "hate away" is from Sonnet 145. It's not usually cited as ebvidence that he couldn't stand her, but that he loved her - though many scholars doubt that it refers to her at all. Paul B 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: At the least it should be added that this is far more commonly cited as evidence of love for Anne than as evidence of resentment, and that that was the interpretation proposed by Andrew Gurr in the article which first drew attention to the claimed pun.   Paul B 16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree the annecdote likely isn't real but it is one of the few annecdotes from his life and the only one we have regarding any sexual identity. Since this article is almost all speculation, we should keep one of the few sourced annecdotes from his time period. I also agree about the rings. However, since people raise this issue with regards to this sexuality issue the article should mention it while also indicating that it's likely not a big deal (as the article does). As for Shakespeare in Love, that merely shows that popular culture accepts the idea of him having heterosexual affairs more than him possibly having affairs with men. Finally, I'm ok changing the header to "sexual identites." I've made that change and did a slight reorganization to make the header work. Let me know what you think.--Alabamaboy 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be ok listing the sonnet 145, if you want. The reference I give for that, though, clearly states that's why the author believes Shakespeare wasn't happily married. It's also an extremely solid reference (none of that website or blog stuff :-).--Alabamaboy 15:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I haven't read that book, but it seems a very idiosynctatic interpretation of a verse that states "I hate" from hate away she threw, and saved my life, saying "not you". Paul B 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And now I'm going to totally reverse myself. You are correct about the "Hate away" sonnet. I messed up the info. Stephen Greenblatt mentions that sonnet to say that Shakespeare once loved Anne but then moved away from that love in their later years. I'll correct this immediately in the article. My apologies for this mistake. I'd also wondered about that sonnet and didn't realize I'd messed up the info myself.--Alabamaboy 16:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated article 

message: I've removed reference to annoyance, and sighing on the Doctor's part in this minor pop reference.  I detected no exasperation here. If anything, the Doctor seemed quite flattered, and he's flirted with  Captain Jack (who is bisexual) in the past.  The executive producer of the program, and of the spin-off Torchwood which stars John Barrowman as Captain Jack and features homosexual relationships of various degrees involving every single main character, is gay and famously produced the Manchester-based "Queer as Folk" serial which had a long-running US-Canadian remake of the same name. --Tony Sidaway 10:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Who reference

message: An editor recently moved this article from the current Sexuality of William Shakespeare to William Shakespeare's sexual orientation. The stated reason is that there are other articles on Wikipedia using this "...'s sexual orientation" format. Personally, I don't support this change because term "sexual orientation" is a loaded term which, as with the term gay, would not be very relevant during Shakespeare's age b/c all our definitions of sexuality--straight, gay, bisexual--were interpreted in different ways then. There is also the issue that a ton of articles link to the current title. Is there consensus to make this change or leave it be?--SouthernNights (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. "Sexuality" is a broader term than "sexual orientation". It covers things like promiscuity and celibacy which aren't necessarily orientations. It might be better to move the Baden Powell article to this style rather than the other way around.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. I totally agree. But until you stated this I didn't realize that sexuality is indeed a broader term. Thanks for "broadening" my mind. :-)--SouthernNights (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

text: OK. I would like to see consistency on this matter, and if that means moving the Baden-Powell article instead, that would also work. *** Crotalus *** 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think consistency can be overrated. Each article is different, and language itself is often inconsistent. The article should have a title proper to the topic. If the Baden-Powell article is specifically about orientation, then that's what it should be called, though "Sexuality" has the advantage that it would allow discussion of more than this one restricted subject. Paul B (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's title 

message: A recent addition to the lead confidently states: "Many scholars now believe that Shakespeare was bisexual." According to WP:LEAD "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". I don't see this in the text, and I'm inclined to remove the sentence. A  tag added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't think that "many scholars" say any such thing. Paul B (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisexuality in lead 

message: The majority of sources in this article don't directly relate to a scholarly discussion of Shakespeare's sexuality, and the most provocative passages of this article lack citations entirely. I'm sympathetic to the "queer theory" school of literary criticism, but perhaps their scholarly energy might be better expended in a discussion of sexuality and gender roles within Shakespeare's text as opposed to half-baked theories about the personal life of a man about whom we know so little. I'm tagging this for "expert attention." 98.219.33.255 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be specific about the most "provocative statements", otherwise your tag is pointless. Paul B (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Provocative" statements without citations should generally be tagged with , btw. --Xover (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the "expert" tag on this article b/c the this anonymous editor is disagreeing with the entire existence of this article, not with it being at an expert level. This article was written by the top Shakespeare editors on Wikipedia and uses a number of expert citations to support the info presented.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As no physical proof of Shakes' sexuality exists, as well as the fact that he never explicitly attempts to draw attention to it in his writings, and the fact that he has been dead for hundreds of years, we can only assume that any "controversy" is based on what people deviate from his writings, or on what they have heard from others reporting on it. So in MY PERSONAL OPINION,(...), this is a non-issue. However, in wiktuality, I believe this does not dserve its own article because it is a rumor page. It is a detatched forum for people who have written things in the past - no actual facts are provided, only opinions. Why does not Clay Aiken deserve a similar page? I'm sure thousands of tabloids believe he's gay. Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this gibberish supposed to tell us something? Paul B (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, be gentle, Paul. I'll revise it so it's more to the point. And I question your use of us, as you are in the first-person singular. Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article exist? 

message: Mens' style of clothing of the past may seem unusual to us but that doesn't mean the men who wore them were homosexual. In the 1700s men had long hair and tights but now that is considered efeminate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.127.0 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe he was just camp/flamboyant? 

message: It was the fashion at the time to write sonnets to other men in a romantic vein:  Shakespeare was not gay, he was just using the poetic style in vogue at the time.  Also the "best bed" was left with the house, like the fireplace or the doors, hence his wife got the second best bed.  These are things I remember from studying Shakespeare, can't remember where for RS though.  And Shakespeare had to leave Stratford-on-Avon for poaching, some say deer, others say rabbits.  A lot of myths are distributed by grade school teachers and high school teachers who haven't studied Shakespeare and just re-iterate the myths they themselves heard in school.  Ignorance breeds ignorance.  67.121.224.49 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Just like the poaching story. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. Ignorance breeds ignorance? What you have said bears nothing but that matter. If he was, so he was. If he was not, he was not. We cannot be certain, which also brings an additional magical layer to his writing. Stephenjamesx (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality and Best Bed Conundrums Explained 

message: Re: "While this is one of the few surviving contemporary anecdotes about Shakespeare, some scholars are sceptical of its validity."
I don't think this passage is as clear as it should be to distinguish sceptical about whether the incident described actually took place and sceptical about whether the anecdote is authentically contemporareous. I'd change it myself if I were sure which kind of "validity" is meant, but I'm not.
Re: "Still, the anecdote suggests that at least one of Shakespeare's contemporaries (Manningham) believed that Shakespeare was heterosexual, even if he was not 'averse to an occasional infidelity to his marriage vows'.
What is the "even" supposed to mean here? Also: Rather than footnoting this supposition--what the "anecdote suggests"--, the article should state in its main text, immediately and clearly, who the supposer is. Otherwise we are implying the supposition is objectively true and the citation is in support of it being objectively true, which is disingenuous. TheScotch (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticisms  of the style remain  unaddressed, but I have firmed up the dating: it is "authentically contemporaneous". --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "''Possible affairs with women''" section 

message: I have removed a number of additions by Roscelese. Here is the explanation:
I removed the statement that "many of which, including Sonnet 18 'Shall I compare thee to a summer's day', are love poems addressed to a man, the 'Fair Lord', and which contain references to sexuality between men." This is misleading. In fact the sex of the recipient of sonnet 18 is never identified in the poem. It is assumed to be addressed to the 'fair youth' because of its place in the sequence. As for the term 'love poem'. This is misleading, because expressions of love for a man are not uncommon in literature of the time. As for "contain references to sexuality between men", this is weasley language. There are no references whatever to sex between men, and "sexuality between men" is such a vague phrase it might mean anything (two blokes boasting to each other about how many women they've slept with could be said to be "references to sexuality between men"). The statement should not be given as if it is somehow undisputed fact. The sentence added at the end says "Wells later commented in 2012 that Shakespeare was bisexual". He says no such thing. He says he may have been. Yes, of course he may have been, and he may not have been. We don't know - or even if "bisexual" is a meaningful concept for the era.  Wells' exact words are "It [the question of his sexuality] goes back centuries, especially because some of Shakespeare’s sonnets are unquestionably addressed to a male. Shakespeare had three children so clearly was not wholly gay. But he may have loved men as well as women." Paul B (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you disagree with the wording, why don't you reword (quote, for example), instead of removing sourced material? Why this repeated removal of the summary of the third section, in violation of WP:LEAD which states that the lead must summarize the body? Wherefore the ridiculous claim that we don't know who Sonnet 18 was written for, when scholars agree that it was addressed to the same man the other sonnets are addressed to? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did reword it. The Wells statement adds nothing new to what is there already. Misrepresenting a source is pretty serious, you know. I've no idea what you mean by "repeated removal of the summary of the third section". It is not a sumnmary. It is a series of mistatements. There was already a summary. Paul B (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition of "reword" is very interesting if it includes "remove." Let's stick with the conventionally accepted definitions of words. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Roscelese

message: User: Pgarret (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: References, no. 22, The site with the URL http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/shakespe.htm has moved and should be updated to the current site http://rictornorton.co.uk/shakespe.htm
Rictornorton (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: These full references are missing:
* Montaigne - This should really be Bush.
* Rollins  - Actually quoting others.
* Bush
Myrvin (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Rollins is quoting someone else isn't a problem (indeed it's helpful that we've got recent scholarship on this, as 18th and 19th century sources can be suspect) - more of a problem is that I do not know who Rollins is and what the title of his or her book is, which may be the problem you're alluding to. However, both of the quotes Rollins provides can be found in a number of other sources, luckily. It's stated in the article prose that the Bush citation is to his 1961 edition of the Sonnets (which does exist, but doesn't seem to be on Google Books) - however, we can also find a secondary source mentioning Bush's opinion   . We should not be citing Montaigne - if Bush talks about male nonsexual friendship in Montaigne, he or sources that mention him should be cited, not Montaigne. Montaigne should only be cited if he talks about the sexuality of Shakespeare. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Rollins is probably Hyder Edward Rollins. Most likely it's his 1944 edition of the sonnets that's being cited, rather an archaic source. This fragmentary footnote has been there since the article was created in 2005, probably because the content was imported from another article back then, but the bibliography wasn't brought over with it. Searching the archives would be a thankless task. But the relevant passages are, as Roscelese says, easily sourced elsewhere. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I could have been clearer, I meant it's good that we have Rollins citing Steevens as opposed to citing Steevens directly. But if we can't track down that Rollins introduction, we have that content in studies specifically on Shakespeare and his sexuality/on sexuality in his works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing refs. 

message: The line from the article; "Still, the anecdote suggests that at least one of Shakespeare's contemporaries (Manningham) believed that Shakespeare was heterosexual" doesn't make any sense. There is nothing from the anecdote that would lead one to conclude that Shakespeare exclusively has sex with women, only that he has sex with women. So it implies nothing about whether he was heterosexual or bisexual. 188.74.64.21 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't make sense? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sexuality of William Shakespeare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051205004638/http://www.chiasmus.com/mastersofchiasmus/shakespeare.shtml to http://www.chiasmus.com/mastersofchiasmus/shakespeare.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Re-corrected "a reoccurring" to "recurring", "panegyric" to "panegyrick" (we don't 'correct' direct quotes), and removed the mid-paragraph link to the main article assuming we can link in the first sentence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  corrections