Talk:William Shakespeare

Vandalism

"there is no point to learn shakespeare its just a waste of time", could someone please remove that? 93.125.198.182 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but as the above section says (probably posted while you were writing this message), the edit has already been reverted by ClueBot. Johnuniq (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Henri328, 25 August 2011

Please remove the line just above the table of Contents that says that 'learning Shakespeare is a wsate of time'

Henri328 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 Already done — Bility (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

When he got married

he actually got married to Ann Hathaway who was 26 and pregnant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.32.98 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, and your point is....? --GuillaumeTell 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

widely regarded as the greatest writer

Just a question on the sourcing: do the three authors cited (Greenblatt, Bevington, Wells) individually support the statement, or is the statement a (perhaps reasonable) synthesis based on 'three' being considered to be 'wide'? Uniplex (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Good question! I've just had a look: Greenblatt and Wells refer to his greatness and the universality of his appeal, which seems acceptable without undue synthesis. Bevington allows this reading unequivocally, devoting his two-page "Conclusion" to the topic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never found this acceptable. It sounds like anglophonic hegemonic opinionizing. I think it true, personally, but a lot of highly educated people I've met from different cultures prefer their own icons. The French, from Voltaire to Pellissier, have remained unimpressed or quizzical, to cite one instance. Writer is too generic. You might get by with dramatist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

As I understand it, we're simply relaying what is stated by the cited, reliable sources; if there are significant alternative views, they can be represented with due weight. My main interest was about the acceptability of synthesis in this type of situation. From the possible counter-arguments you suggest, it is clear that synthesis would be a very dangerous thing; however, from Old Moonraker's response (thanks), it seems that all is okay. Uniplex (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It does sound suspiciously like weasel words.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I find the whole concept of weasel words inherently weasely. We can't say universally regarded, so widely regarded is about as clear as we are likely to get. Paul B (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to badger the point, but three anglocentric Shakespearean scholars recirculating German Romantic opinions are not much of a witness to the world's taste. The Japanese are more moved by Chikamatsu as Indians are by Kalidasa; and Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides all outproduced by a mile Shakespeare, and what they wrote has survived 2500 years with astonished appraisel undiminished, unlike Shakespeare who has had his downs and ups; many French critics have for long have preferred Racine, as many Italians Dante. When you are secure in an opinion, don't bruit it about. Who cares for such judgements, even if they happen to coincide with one's own. It's pure blague.Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is instructive to take the trouble to read what the sentence actually says. It doesn't claim that Shakespeare is the world's greatest writer; it says "... widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist." Tom Reedy (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Actually, Tom, I do construe what I read. 'Widely regarded (missing =in the English-speaking world) as the greatest writer in the English language the world's pre-eminent dramatist.' It's anglocentric, and modernist in its judgement. Sophocles with his 120 odd plays, and his award-winning record of beating for the prize competition from Aeschylus to Euripides, wrote a masterpiece like Oedipus at Colonus when he was over 90, and it still dazzles. Of the 300 odd plays just that triumvirate of Athenian genius produced over a century, only a 10th. (31 or 33 depending on attribution) survived the merciless onslaught of tempus edax and copyist-fatigue. Everything we have is breathtaking in the original, much startling in its complex dramatic emplotment, poignantly lyrical in tone and tack-sharp in its stychomythical rhythms of vernacular repartee. Hamlet,Macbeth and Lear are variously present in the stories of the house of Agamemnon or Oedipus, etc. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Book of Lists included a list of the greatest plays ever written as compiled by John Gielgud. He put Hamlet #2 to Oedipus the King.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's 'anglocentric', anymore than placing Italian artists of the Renaissance in a 'pre-eminent' position for many centuries is Italocentric, or indeed asserting the pre-eminence of German composers in the 18th-19th century is Germanocentric. There are many cases in which there is international acceptance of national pre-eminence in particular fields at particular times, including, of course, the international acceptance of the importance of ancient Athenian culture. If we said Elgar is the 'pre-eminent' composer of orchestral music then that would be anglocentic. As for the complaint that it is 'modernist', I'm not sure that's relevant. It's in the present tense. It's the current view - the view of the modern era, to which WS himself belongs. Paul B (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

H.L. Mencken was the greatest writer in the English language; everyone knows that.

The analogies don't work becaue you periodize Italians (Renaissance) and Germans(18th-19th century) whereas, as we have, it Shakespeare is 'the world's greatest dramatist' period, which means, since the year dot, down to our dotty times. In poetry, you never, in principle, should speak of the 'greatest'. All great poets are on a par, whether they have written much or little. There can be no sure ranking in genius or mode. When I say the point made is true, I am saying that in my reading is true, and not mistaking my subjective prejudice with some vacuous concept about international opinion.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Strangely, I've only just seen this reply. I was noting that composers and artists from those periods are reckoned the greatest. beethoven, Mozart and Bach are still the main contendors. They are not just greatest for that period. I was not aware that all great poets are on a par. There can be no sure ranking, but there sure can be and are rankings. The vacuous concept of international opinion (the "opinion of the world" as Johnson would say) has quite a bit of support - internationally. Paul B (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: " I was noting that composers and artists from those periods are reckoned the greatest. beethoven, Mozart and Bach are still the main contendors. They are not just greatest for that period."

Mozart was Austrian, not German. Beethoven was a German who moved to Austria and established himself there. If by Bach, you mean J. S. Bach, during his life he had only a local reputation. C.P.E. Bach was much more highly regarded (during C.P.E. Bach's life). In any case, three composers cannot establish the "pre-eminence of German composers" either "in the 18th-19th century", as you originally asserted, or forever, as you asserted later.

There is no need for the article to assert that Shakespeare was the world's greatest writer, however qualified. However qualified, it's still POV. If you want the article to say that Moe, Curley Joe, and Larry call him the world's greatest writer, that's fine so long 1) as the attribution is in the main text, not merely in a footnote, 2) Moe, Curley Joe, and Larry are notable, and 3) Moe, Curley Joe, and Larry calling him that is notable. Whether or not they are (in this case) can be discussed here. TheScotch (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We actually do edit from a POV: that of the academic consensus as stated by reliable sources. Those sources agree that Shakespeare is "widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist", not only in the academy's opinion, but in popular opinion as well. Please use the search function; this particular topic has been discussed many times. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Mozart was not "Austrian" rather than German, because German was an ethnicity not a nationality at the time. There was no German state. Indeed Joseph II's titles included the term "King in Germany". Austria was part of "German" territory. Mozart is part of the cultural history of German music, and is perceived as such. You are confusing the current names of nation states with issues of ethnocentrism, which is what this debate is about. Obviously I mean JS Bach, that's who people mean when they say "Bach". This is pointless pedantry, since you miss the point that I am talking about eveluation now, not during the lifetime of the individuals concerned. Shakespeare would not have been identified as the greatest ever playwright in his lifetime, so that Bach comparison is irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Obviously I mean JS Bach, that's who people mean when they say "Bach". This is pointless pedantry, since you miss the point that I am talking about eveluation now, not during the lifetime of the individuals concerned. "

During C.P.E.'s lifetime when people said "Bach", they meant C.P.E. Bach, and the "pointless pedantry" is yours (as is the temporal equivocation)--yet your analogy is simply perpetuating a musically uninformed popular misconception. Anyway, it's pretty damn obvious that the "widely regarded" qualification is there only because you know can't get away with an unqualified "greatest". I am arguing that the article doesn't need to say "greatest" in any way, shape, or form. TheScotch (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't some phrases be wikilinked?

For example, Johannes factotum, in the way I just linked it here? Not everyone will understand these phrases and after all, isn't that why we have Wikipedia? I have edit permissions, but I would prefer it if someone agreed with me before it's changed. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Johannes Factotum is wikilinked - look a few lines down from the first usage. The reason it is not linked when first used is that it appears in a quotation. The general rule is not to interefere with quotations. Sometimes links are placed in them, but the usual practice is to avoid that if there are other places to link the term. If you think there are other useful links to phrases, add them. Sometimes editors may simply not know that a phrase has its own article. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Royal patent versus letters patent, and wikilinking same

The article refers to a Royal Patent, but searching wikipedia brings up Letters Patent instead. So which is correct? In either case, shouldn't the term be linked to the appropriate article? I'll leave it to people who are more versed on the topic to decide, but I thought it should be mentioned and discussed. 71.134.237.3 (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Letters Patent, sealed on 19 May 1603, was the official document permitting Burbage, Fletcher, Shakespeare "and the rest of theire Assosiates" to perform in public "for the recreation of our lovinge Subjectes", but the real point comes later: "for our [sc. James I in his two bodies] Solace and pleasure when wee shall thincke good". Here "royal patent" seems equivalent to a royal order and, uncapitalised as at present, seems to fit quite well. On the one hand: the document; on the other: the command conveyed in the document. Is that any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A new wikilink .

Can I add a new link to the words in this page ? I'm new here , so I want to ask permission 27 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Badri (talk • contribs)

What link? Paul B (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A link to Elizabethan Era and if ican some more too Naveen Badri (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and do what you want as long as it's within policy and improves the article. If it's not, have no fear; someone is sure to point it out for you. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Authorship

The text mentions that "Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution"[1] which I thought was ambiguous and subjective (how much is "small"), so I replaced it with what I felt was a more accurate sentence reflected by the source. However, the sentence is restored on the grounds that "the source is misleading". In which case:

• In what way is the source is misleading?
• How do we judge the accuracy of once sentence over the other? --Iantresman (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion here, to save re-plowing an old furrow. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It was also addressed at this discussion. Essentially, the survey is presented as a summary of the views of "Shakespeare professors", but it is not. In fact it is an arbitrary survey of teachers in private and public colleges. ("The professors teach Shakespeare in the English departments of public and private four-year colleges and universities, which were selected randomly." [2]) Since Shakespeare is taught in virtually all English courses, this does not mean that the "professors" had any special expertise in the subject beyond being English teachers. They were chosen at random - so Shakespeare specialists were not the subject of the survey. The question as asked is deliberately misleading (see RS discussion for details) and it was framed by a journalist who notoriously promotes the anti-Strat cause and has been heavily criticised for misleading and distorted reporting. See [3]. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links (if only Wikipedia had a means of searching a single article talk page). In which case by the same reasoning, I content that the summary sentence is also unreliable on two counts (1) the source is unreliable (2) the summary sentence is subjective in its use of the word "small". It seems to me that it the sentence should be either (a) removed (b) should sumarise the survey without being subjective in quantity (c) should just note that there was a survey.

Personally I don't think the NY Times survey is unreliable. It is irrefutable that there was a NY Times Survey, and they have made some attempt to summarise and described the data, so it is not a worthless piece of "research". It is only how we summarise the survey that is at issue? --Iantresman (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The last bit is a remarkable non sequitur. The fact that it's irrefutable that there was a survey has no bearing on it reliability. It's irrefutable that there was a book called The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Its irrefutable existence does not make it reliable. Its worth or worthlessness as a survey is determined by its academic reliability, which is pretty much non-existant, since there was a misleading question and the respondents were self-selecting, chosen arbitrarily without any evidence of expertise on Early Modern English culture. If the results of the survey are presented in the text then it gives it legitimacy as a "true" representation of opinion. Including it as a footnote is different, since it merely refers the reader to the report, though I'd prefer more footnotes making the main point. Paul B (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It surely depends on what facts we are describing. If I'm stating a bold-faced "fact" that there is bloodline descended from Jesus, and referencing The Holy Blood, then of course the book is not reliable. If I'm claiming that some authors have claimed there is a bloodline, then the book is irrefutable evidence of that fact. Of course it doesn't support the bloodline claim.

Likewise I have no claim on the veracity of authorship of Shakespeare. My only criticism is the use of the word "small" in the statement "a small minority of academics". Small is subjective. My first thought was that it perhaps meant one in a thousand. Which academic had been asked? Does include English teachers? Historians? Either way, the survey does contain some hard figures which are not subjective: i.e. irrefutable facts, if correctly attributed and described, and wholly reliable.

Where in the NY survey do I confirm "small minority", as I can't find it reliable sourced? --Iantresman (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at the next three sources. IIRC, before the NYT survey those sourced the entire sentence. After the survey was done, it was added after the first clause of the sentence, since the survey doesn't speak to the last clause. And one in a thousand would not equal "small"; it would equal "almost unanimously". We use words in their usual meanings; "small" means "Of a size that is less than normal or usual; little." 6 percent is certainly a small percentage by anyone's standards. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So I assume that the source is Q15 of the NY survey, in which case I interpret the result differently: indeed 6% specifically questions Shakespeare's authorship, BUT an additional 11% also possible question it, making 17% that question it. That is still smaller than the 82% who specifically don't question it, but is 17% small? It is definitely smaller, and definitely a minority, but who draws the line of what percentage represents small? I'd favour removing the subjective word "small", in which case the sentence retains its conclusion, and without using the subjective and vague "small". --Iantresman (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. "Possibly" doesn't qualify as "believ[ing] there is reason to question the traditional attribution". Possibly means just what it says: perhaps yes, perhaps no. "Small" is also a word with a clear-cut definition, and 6% is well within the parameters of that definition, and the term "small minority" is an accurate description. This has already been hashed out, discussed, dissected, and the consensus of the editors of this page have agreed that the wording is accurate and not misleading. If you want to pursue it yet again, I suggest you follow the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And "possibly" does not qualify as not believing, so I contend that the number is between 6-17% (up to 22% if we consider the NY Times estimate that data is ±5%, which brings the total possible figure over a fifth) which the subjective word "small", and the sentence does not make clear. When my salary was cut by 6%, I did not consider it "small". I am sure that when the Merchant of Venice was told that he would lose 6% of his flesh, he would not consider it small. So I am happy for you to disagree, but (a) I disagree with this use of "small" (b) the sentence could easily be change to remove any ambiguity and subjectivity. --Iantresman (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The size of your salary cut is not relevant to this use of the word. Again, I suggest you follow the Wikipedia dispute resolution process and notify all interested editors when you do so. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution won't be necessary, we're allowed to disagree, and in my opinion, "small" does not cover "up to 22%". I shall drop the suggestion. --Iantresman (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, but it's not "up to 22%", since "up to" is not a meaningful statistic. The 'possibly' answer may even refer to the entirely mainstream view that Shakespeare was not the principal author of several plays, or it may be a generic statement that ultimately anything is just about possible. Paul B (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Media suggestion

In the section about plays, would it be appropriate to add this media as an example performance? Pine^talk 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't think so. It would open the gate to the article being packed with hundreds of these. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Pine^talk 07:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2011

There is currently vandalism on the wikipedia page for William shakespear in the first line. I would like to be able to fix this vandalism. BCthroughNL (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. If you want to sort it yourself you need to be autoconfirmed--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SAQ

I think we should add more discussion on the authorship dispute. Will Shakspere of Stratford could barely write his name. He did not speak English of the variety understood in London, and he left school at 14. He was a drifter, a fugitive, and a greedy land-grabber. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at the facts that Will Shakspere did not write these plays, that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym, and that we've been honoring the wrong person for 400 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.1.93 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned here, but there is a long established consensus that it be only briefly noted. There are many other articles in which it is discussed, principally Shakespeare authorship question. All of your assertions are disputed by Shakespeare scholars, but this is not the proper place to discuss the issue in detail. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we know what you think by all your other edits. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)