Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 3

message: Comment after reading the discussion in archive 2:
Personally I think 'Most quoted writer' is a hard thing to say. It seems that the source draws from various categories. IMO though Shakespeare being a 'Most quoted writer' is a commonly agreed thing it is impossible to prove that. We don't know if there's a secret anti-Shakespearean group somewhere speaking non-Shakespeare quotes everyday just to destroy this claim. All in all the claim cannot be verified. We might need to specify some categories that we can easily prove, such as 'Most quoted writer in dictionaries', 'Most quoted writer in books', etc., or just simply 'One of the most quoted writers'. Aranherunar 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim is supported by the Oxford English Dictionary which actually surveys literature for quotes, and also accounts for everyday usage of famous phrases Bwithh 14:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued talk: Most quoted writer 

message: Shouldn't this page be protected? Because well, i mean the Globe Theatre is ..so why not Shakespeare. He's a big guy...and the page should get protection from unregistered users and newly registered users samphex 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: When Shakespeare is translated into other languages, do they tend to translate him into a pseudo-16th century version of that language, or a modern one? Does anyone have any examples? TharkunColl 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Into modern language, usually, as I understand. I don't have any examples, but presumably you'd find plenty on amazon.fr or amazon.de etc. AndyJones 12:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations into other languages

message: It is a lower middle class hobby horse which reconciles a fearful respect for Culture with an underlying destructive urge. It is directly comparable to Holocaust denial and Creationism. 
Wack jobs with authoritarian personality disorders are pretty much the only subscribers to classist theories of aristocratic authorship.
*whoever posted the above attack should be ashamed.   You violate wiki rules and then have the gall to diagnose the various "wack jobs". Comparisons to Holocaust denial???? Oh, Grow up!Smatprt 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smatprt, I'd suggest not feeding anonymous trolls. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Authorship Question is NOT "under debate" by serious Shakespeare scholars

message: Francis Bacon being William Shakespear is supported by computer studies esp 
of shared word usage esp words from the early dictionary by Thomas Cooper.
:No it isn't. Paul B 11:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation/Identity

message: New section ?
Little is understood by academe about enlightenment, taught in the old
colleges of Greece, Egypt & Rome, to engender that white heat of extraordinary creativity and abilities that a Shakespear surely had,
and less of the potential resulting burnout from that heightened energy.
Muse or direct selection by heaven as Saul / Paul struck blind then 
enlightened, or manic madness - rude jackanapes chant on.
:Illuminating. Please feel free to keep future similar thoughts to yourself. Paul B 11:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muse, Enlightenment, BUrnout

message: A new site about Shakespeare's works has recently launched. It's located at:
http://www.playshakespeare.com
This site should be added because it's a free resource for the plays which differs from other online resources.  All other online versions are based on the Globe Edition of his works which is an outdated (by almost 150 years!) and contains many errors. The texts are based on the Riverside Edition (the most authoritative edition blessed by top Shakespeare scholars today) and are more complete than those of the Globe Edition due to later discovery and examination. Therefore, the quality of the content is HIGHER than on other sources freely available online (though there are PAID sources which are comparable in quality).
Additionally, the site provides other facts and figures about the plays (lines, lengths, chronologies, etc.) as well as a forum providing expert analysis by university professors and the dramaturg of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, OR. (the most popular Shakespeare festival in the the US). The site has a performance-related focus and on the interpretation of Shakespeare's plays for performance.
The site is (and always will be) free and fulfills the Wikipedia requirements for external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severdia (talk • contribs) 
*No, it is SPAM. We only accept the best quality external links for major articles on Wikipedia (At least, we aspire to, but don't get me going on that subject). This site is largely a wikipedia mirror. Look here and you find mainly sentences I wrote myself. We do not want this SPAM here. AndyJones 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New link for external links section 

message: Somewhere in Wikipedia, is there a chart of the relationships of all the characters in the histories?  Something graphical would really help one to understand who's killing whom.
63.224.201.110 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genealogy of Shakespeare's History 

message: As if there's anything else I can ask...what was it? Any clues throughout the ages? Any hard fact? VolatileChemical 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the historical researcher Graham Phillips, on the evening of his death Shakespeare was out celebrating his birthday with fellow playwright Ben Johnson (which, incidentally, confirms his birthdate as the 23rd). He was later, supposedly, murdered by Sir Walter Raleigh. TharkunColl 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to tradition he was out boozing with Jonson and Drayton, and caught an infection, but there's no proof of this. His relative inactivity suggests that he may have suffered a lingering illness of some sort, but it's all speculative. I don't know how Raleigh fits into this, or what Sir W's motive would be...unless he was the REAL SHAKESPEARE. Paul B 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death 

message: The French Shakespeare article is longer and better than ours. Disgrace, friends. --192.232.30.80 12:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that a bad thing? Shakespeare has crossed virtually every language barrier. It's hardly surprising. If you're fluent in French, then by all means bring from the French version what you think is missing in this English version. --Durin 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revenge The English Joan of Arc article is better than the French article. ;) Durova 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly, but funny. :)  -  Throw 10:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a dark day 

message: Regarding this edit summary and this edit summary I just thought I'd mention that Henry VIII is part of the canonical 37. It's The Two Noble Kinsmen that brings the currently-accepted number up to 38. However, PLEASE don't lets start edit warring about the number of plays. There are all sorts of POVs on that: those who say The Tempest or Titus Andronicus or Henry VI Part 1 (etc. etc.) are NOT Shakespeare, and those who insist Edward III and Cardenio and Woodstock (etc. etc.) ARE Shakespeare. 38 remains the best number IMHO, so long as we say "about". AndyJones 07:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course you are right. My slip. Plus there's the Love's Labour's Won issue and others. Paul B 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many plays? 

message: Although the Wikipedia guidelines suggest that external links be kept to a minimum, I do think that there are some gaps, and some odd choices in the list at the end of the article. I'd like to suggest some additions, and would request that reviewers consider adding my own site, the Internet Shakespeare Editions (ISE). We offer old spelling versions of all the texts, facsimiles, an extensive section on the life and times, a growing database of Shakespeare in performance, and a detailed section of links. The ISE is non-profit, and freely available. We follow the guidelines of the University of Victoria concerning users with disabilities.
Other sites.
* Terry Gray's site Mr William Shakespeare and the Internet is generally cited elsewhere, and though it has not been updated for a year, it's still very good.
* Non-English Shakespeare is well represented by Shakespeare in Europe, (Sh:in:E), a project of the English Department at Basel University, Switzerland.
* Discussions of those on the SHAKSPER listserv, which has been going strong for over a decade, are  worth visiting too.
Mbest1 01:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sites to link to 

message: In the article it states incorrectly that 'The principal hurdle for the Oxfordian theory is the evidence that many of the Shakespeare plays were written after their candidate's death, but well within the lifespan of William Shakespeare.'  This is absolutely wrong and misleading. There is now no evidence whatsoever that any of the works were written after the death of Edward deVere in 1604. The only play in question, back in 1920, was 'The Tempest' which was incorrectly assumed to have been written after deVere's death. But that issue has since been resolved.
That is an absurd claim.24.77.19.233 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward deVere as the true author of the works known as Shake-speare. 

message: Anyone have a cite for this? It's pretty weak. Adam Cuerden talk 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Life

message: (though not same day for England was still functioning under the Julian calendar)
Perhaps more like this?:
(though not same day, since England...)
or
(though not same day for England, as they were still...)
Both ways sound better/clearer to this little anonymouse, but I wanted to see if anyone objected. :D 
206.176.81.73 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for "Later Years" 

message: The King James Version Of The Bible Was Written In The Year 1611. In That Year William Shakespear Was 46 (to be 47 later in the year). In Psalm 46 If You Count Down 46 Words The Word Shake Appears If You Count Up 46 Words (right to left) From The Bottom The Word The Word Spear Appears. This Has To Do With Shakespear Writting The Bible!!       89.101.99.136 14:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the book was published in 1611, not written. 24.77.19.233 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, regardless, the oddity exists in versions of the bible predating Shakespeare. Just a curious footnote, and doesn't have a place on this article. --Durin 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this was first noticed in the 19th C and was used as evidence that S was involved in translation. Kipling wrote a short story based on it called Proofs of Holy Writ. It's generally regarded as sheer coincidence. Paul B 19:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bible

message: When I visited it, the guide said Shakespeare's house had been demolished and that this was the one next door. Mary Arden's cottage is a better bet because Shakespeare certainly lived there in his childhood. qp10qp 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture is a back view of the Henley St house known as "Shakespeare's birthplace". It was owned by the Shakespeare family, but there's no proof that he was actually born there. You are referring to New Place, the house he was living in when he died. That was demolished in the 18th century. Paul B 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I've been there too; not seen it from that view (just looked round inside) and thought it was the other one. Although that one's indeed called "Shakespeare's house", he didn't own it, which is why I was misled by the photo. Apologies. qp10qp 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: That's not Shakespeare's house

message: Does anyone know if an etext of "Vortigern and Rowena" exists?
S davis 07:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  etext of Vortigern and Rowena? 

message: Properly, it should read , "the 1587 edition of Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles" since the original edition was from a decade earlier, and Holinshed was well dead by 1587.24.77.19.233 01:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i donot understand much about shakespere but i belive you are right!!!
Not to harp on this, but "Raphael Holinshed's 1587 edition of The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland" is still not correct, since it wasn't edited by Holinshed.  The correct reading should be, as I wrote above, "the 1587 edition of Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles..." Also, "(which provided material for Macbeth and King Lear)" should be "(which also provided material for Macbeth and King Lear)"24.77.19.233 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail on Holinshed's Chronicles 

message: I can't find any information on wikipedia about the Sanders portrait of Shakespeare.  Here's some links about the portrait:  http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/whats-new/portrait_e.shtml & http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/multimedia/imagegallery/m_i_13.cfm
Do you know if this is accurate?  (Patadragon 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information in the first link is fairly accurate, though it omits the handwriting evidence. The second one is full of misconceptions and inaccuracies. Paul B 10:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanders Portrait 

message: I assume that you good folks here do know that your Good Article grade is being discussed over at GAR? Perhaps an editor would like to pop over there before it gets delisted? I haven't seen any note of the review here.
I would also comment that I have mentioned this articles referral in a rant over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) in the piece entitled WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of Wikipedia:The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit. You may wish to get over there and disassociate yourself with my ravings... LessHeard vanU 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's teh direct link: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#William_Shakespeare. I've posted there already. In short, this article is very stable aside from anonymous vandalism and is a very good article which, with a little work, could become a featured article.--Alabamaboy 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, if the review had been archived earlier it would of been no consensus anyway, there wasn't much danger of this article being delisted I think. Homestarmy 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are at [[WP:GAR]]. Were you told? 

message: In the interest of being a good article collaboration, I think this article should undergo another peer review.  The last one was over a year ago.  --  Wikipedical 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second peer review 

message: Can someone who can edit the article edit it??!! It's been stuck on a vandalized version since the 31st. Ridiculous state of affairs!
Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked and I can't see any vandalism. Where is the problem? - Eron Talk 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. User "Mascott" had changed a few dates by adding a century or so, but he/she/it changed them back again on the last edit. Sorry! .... Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. Old vandalism sometimes gets missed so I wanted to be sure there wasn't something I wasn't seeing. - Eron Talk 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edits vandalized