Talk:William Shakespeare

Coat of Arms

There's a more neatly presented, and more accurately depicted, coat of arms in Shakespeare's life. I suggest, supported by the WP:SS and WP:UNDUE policies, that we don't need it here as well.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No defenders: removed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Authorship Question question at ANI board

Most editors here will be interested in this thread at the ANI board. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote

Can you help me correctly quote this? reference: My Crown is in my heart... not made of diamonds or jewels, nor to be seen by anyone.........

Many Thanks, Jeanelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.140.80 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You should be asking this at Wikipedia:Reference desk, but since you're here: it's 3 Henry VI, act 3 scene 1, line 60. Good, isn't it? Not widely quoted, though. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Authorship question at NPOV noticeboard

Some of you might be interested in this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thorn vs. Y

Could anyone besides Cairnon and I comment on this exchange?

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

I personally feel that it is a mistake to "correct" the original spelling of Shakespeare's stone. Since we are directly quoting it, we should write it as it is written. The use of a 'y' in place of a thorn was widespread in early modern England. Modern scholars don't ever, in all the reading I've done, feel the need to replace Ys with thorns. Why should we? Wrad (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As above: The "Thorn" character wasn't used by the sculptor, who used the "y" form. As we are quoting, we should follow suit. I too can't remember ever seeing Thorn in print. The font rendering used here (at least on my browser) without the curves—"þe" and "þt" rather than File:ME ye.png and —jarred and looked completely at variance with the accompanying image.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You can view a picture of the actual (although not original) grave marker here. To be accurate I think we should represent it with a "y" (and correct the transcription in the aticle). Tom Reedy (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

They're completely different letters, and the fact that they used to be written similarly is irrelevant, unless you also want to argue that the dot on the I in Iesvs means we should be using the Turkish dotted İ. This isn't about "correcting the original spelling", it's about correctly transcribing the way it was spelled on the stone in the first place. I'd also be fine with using the File:ME ye.png and images inline if you're that worried about superficial similarity, but as the article is currently written, it's incorrectly transcribed. And at the very least, there should be a link back to that section of the thorn article where the abbreviations are explained. --Cairnarvon (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the original carver of the stone didn't have that form in his original copy, and so he cut it into the stone as a "Y". And that is not a dot above the I (J); it's a pit in the stone, as you can readily discern in the picture whose link I gave above or here (there is a similar pit below the A that begins the last line). Looking at the picture of the "rubbing" displayed above the grave, you can see that whoever made that enhanced the letters and moved the "dot" a bit to the left in order to center it over the I.

And actually, this is all beside the point. Wikipedia follows how the printed references transcribe it. All the ones I've seen use the "Y" for the thorn and I have seen none that portray it as you suggest. "Correctly transcribing the way it was spelled on the stone in the first place" would be OR. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that it's just a pit in the stone, and clearly the person making the rubbing didn't think it was. Schoenbaum was certainly aware that the letter is a thorn and not a Y. If he used the wrong glyph to represent it, it is only because of limitations of his typewriter or the shortcomings of the typesetter, as you should realise. But that's besides the point, because there is no sense in which being able to read what is plainly written in a picture right next to the text in question is "original research" any more than reading it in Schoenbaum is.

There's also the fact that positioning of the E and Ts over the thorns has significance which is not reflected in the current transcription, and which, particularly with the removal of the link, will be meaningless to the average reader. As written, the article is, besides wrong, unnecessarily confusing. --Cairnarvon (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the current transcription is completely clear to anyone who knows how early modern texts are usually transcribed, because it follows the pattern of every other transcription I've ever seen, as it should. Wrad (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When William Shakespeare Was Born

Wikipedia is wrong when it says that the date is not known because he was born on the same day he died...

• The exact date of Shakespeare's birth is unknown but the date of his baptism is and because baptisms usually occur three days after birth it is accepted but not fact that he was born on the 23rd. "It will randomly work out" (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

23^rd of April 1564

People need to know this and not be dumb founded when they can not find an answer.
*site your source please. "It will randomly work out" (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Shakespeare's life, where it says "The date of his birth is not known, but his baptismal record was dated 26 April 1564. This is the first official record of Shakespeare, as birth certificates were not issued in the time of Queen Elizabeth. Because baptisms were normally performed within a few days of birth it is highly likely Shakespeare was born in April 1564, although the long-standing tradition that he was born on 23 April has no historical basis (baptisms at this time were not invariably performed exactly three days after birth as is sometimes claimed)."

What this means is that

• there is a surviving record of the date of his baptism but
• there is no surviving record of the date of his birth,
• and it is therefore wrong to assert that he was born on April 23rd or any other particular day.

--GuillaumeTell 21:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Another take on Authorship Question POV

The current paragraph referring to this topic is not NPOV for several reasons. It belittles the theory with the last sentence, it gives added weight to the Oxford theory without explaining evidence for this weight (evidence is also not provided in the separate Wiki entry either), and the paragraph begins by implying that there were no doubts about authorship for the first 150 years. Proponents of the theory see doubts in all the actions of Shakespeare's colleagues, in Ben Jonson's eulogy, in the statue at Wilton House, etc. I'm adding the NPOV heading and hope to see discussion as to why my proposed paragraph was considered unacceptable.Jdkag (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Proponents of the theory find coded doubts all over the place. However non believers in the theory - that is mainstream scholars - deny the existence of these supposed coded messages. There were no directly expressed doubts until the mid nineteenth century. In fact this is more than 200 years after his death. The 150 year date relies on accepting the claims for James Wilmot, which have now been totally discredited. So it's actually too generous. Your proposed paragraph was unacceptable because it was a list of names of so-called doubters, not a passage of analysis or history. Some weren't even doubters at all - Dickens, for example. Leslie Howard's so-called doubts were actually spoken by a character he played in a film. Maybe the character was voicing his, Leslie Howard's, opinion. I've no idea. I've seen the film several times. It's about someone who conceals his true identity and who professes to believe things he really doesn't, so even the character might be lying about his Oxfordian views. Who knows? Paul B (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of having a summary in the main article, with a link to the subsidiary article, is explained in WP:Summary Style: "not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front". That list of names, even if reliable, was obviously in contravention. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Second go: Why is Jonson's eulogy cited as evidence of doubt about WS as the author? For most commentators the acceptance by Jonson (and other contemporary playwrights, some of whom collaborated scene-and-scene about with Shakespeare) confirms authorship. *Shapiro, James (2010). Contested Will. London: Faber. pp. 271–274. ISBN 978-0-571-23576-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to info on the Jonson "doubts" you are asking about: [[5]] It is from Greenwood, by way of Anderson. Smatprt (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As every conspiracy theorist knows, when Jonson said that the guy in the engraving was the same guy who was the author of the plays he meant the opposite. Paul B (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And as Jonson said "Look Not on his Picture, but his Booke"! Smatprt (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That sentence clearly says that the person in the picture is the same as the author of the book: his picture; his book. Paul B (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my fault: let's not allow the seemingly endless "was he or wasn't he" debate escape from the "authorship" talk page. May we get back to the point here: the {{NPOV}} tag? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying that there was no doubt for the first 150 years is as non-NPOV as it would be to start the article by saying that for 400 years researchers have been searching, generally unsuccessfully, for a literary trail connecting the Shakespeare of Stratford to the writing of the poetry and plays. The comment in the paragraph about "only a small minority of academics" is also non-NPOV unless you point out that this is the conclusion of a survey of English Literature professors. Look at the arguments raised at www.doubtaboutwill.org; they do not mention anything about "codes." The arguments raised in Mark Twain's book are simple and have not been adequately addressed in the 100 years since he wrote them. But this is not the place for us to convince each other of whether there is room for doubt or not, it is a place to discuss the proper way to summarize the topic. The paragraph needs to be rewritten so as not to belittle the Anti-Stratfordian position and to raise at least one reasonable argument made by the Anti-Stratfordians, so as to convey some sense of the issue.

By the way, after looking at the quotes at www.doubtaboutwill.org, I have to agree with Moonraker about Leslie and Dickens, and I've written to the site suggesting that they remove these names. The others all seem credible, and in place of Leslie and Dickens, a list of prominent figures could include Supreme Court Justices Stevens and O'Connor. In my own mind, the best argument is that no written manuscripts remain, indicating that someone wanted to hide their origins. But any reasonable argument would suffice to raise the summary paragraph to NPOV. Including the partial list of "proposed candidates" is not necessary unless it is to point out that referenced authors, such as Gibson, see them as being less credible than Shakespeare himself. (No candidate has yet been proposed convincingly, which is why there is still doubt.)

I personally would be interested in learning more and hope that the main article can be fixed up to be NPOV and to include good links. For example, the Stratfordian site shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html#5 lists three pieces of evidence connecting Shakespeare the actor to the works within his lifetime. These are: a reference to the playwright as a "fellow," perhaps of actors, in a 1601 student play in Cambridge; the John Davies poem, To our English Terence; and the citation in the Annales. If there are links to additional evidence, please let me know.Jdkag (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Authorship POV and the "Fringe" view

The discussion of authorship POV at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Shakespeare_authorship_WP:ONEWAY_violations

relates to whether or not to include the issue of authorship in the Shakespeare entry. Now that it is in, it should be made NPOV. There needn't be more than two or three sentences, but those sentences should not be sentences belittling the theory. That means putting one or two links to Anti-Stratfordian books and websites, in addition to the links to Stratfordian references. The doubt about Shakespeare authorship is not a fringe theory by Wiki standards and shouldn't be represented as such by emotional Stratfordians. I would also remove references to possible candidates, as this is also an emotional issue.

I think we should leave the POV heading until the three sentence summary can be made neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdkag (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually - the ONEWAY discussion at NPOV does not concern this particular article. Also, to clarify, wiki has an extremely broad definition of "Fringe" - which basically categorizes anything that departs from mainstream scholarship - be it "minority" or "alternative" views - as "Fringe". Smatprt (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is a fringe theory in Wikipedia's sense, and has been repeatedly adjudged so. No significant scholars support it and never have. The reason you are not getting replies, Jdkag, is that no one wants to re-hash once more arguments that have been gone over repeatedly and ad nauseam. Paul B (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please point out the "belittling" language. And I suggest you read WP:FRINGE. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jdkag, it would be helpful if you could be more specific about the "belittling" language you detect. Otherwise, it might appear that you are simply being overly sensitive. As you note - there are emotional issues at play, and these can make all sides somewhat paranoid and "loaded for bear". Smatprt (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ethnicity = Catholic" in infobox

Reversions explained: WS may have had a Catholic family background, but this isn't "ethnicity". Great Britain is an anachronism. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

yea ur right, but he belongs to a Catholic and as far i'm concern he remained to be a Catholic until his death.

And secondly removing nationality is utterly nonsense there is no denying that is indeed a British and he hasn't taken any other citizenship of a country.--Kkm010^as© 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Great Britain was established only in 1707 - until that year, separate Kingdoms of England and Scotland existed (though under single ruler since 1603). As for the notable works - I don't see the point why to pick three plays only from such a great corpus of work - IMHO it's better not to single out anything because Shakespeare's work is so much notable (and known) as a whole for the public, that there's no need to single out any individual piece from it. --ja_62 13:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As ja_62 says, he was English by nationality, not British. I don't know what you mean by "he remained to be a Catholic until his death", since he never was one legally, if by "Catholic" you mean "Roman Catholic". He was baptised into the Church of England (which had established the Thirty-Nine Articles defining its differences from Roman Catholicism the year before). In one sense the C of E is a "Catholic" church, but it is not Roman Catholic. Using the term Catholic is simply confusing and misleading. Paul B (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you but the ? is we should come to a clear conclusion that what this persons nationality and ethnicity is, its too much confusion but still i want to put both confusing facts. and why you people stopped or refrain from discussion. Their should be a clear conclusion that what this writer ethnicity and nationality.--Kkm010^as© 15:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend what your points exactly are, but as there are many speculations on Shakespeare's religious beliefs at the best - it is not possible to came to an easy and generally accepted conclusion what his religious stance exactly was. With the exception of Church of England as the church he was verifiably connected to.

Moreover, religious affiliation is not necessarily the same thing as ethnicity - and neither Catholics nor Anglicans are an ethnoreligious group.

As for the "English" nationality - yes, it perhaps should be inserted in. --ja_62 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the nationality, should i now put "English" as nationality. And about the ethnicity WHAT CAN SHOULD BE DONE ?--Kkm010^as© 06:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing should be done about it. Leave it blank. 'Ethnicity' need only be used when it is a useful concept. In India, as you will know, there are many specifically ethnic groups within the overall nationality, based on traditional endogamous religious and tribal affilliations. That doesn't apply in England. There may be one or two cases in which it would be appropriate to define a person's ethnicity, if it distinctive. This is not one of them. Paul B (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The template documentation expressly says: All fields are optional. Any unused parameter names can be left blank or omitted. No need to fill in every parameter.--ja_62 10:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah ur right in India ethnicity do matters a lot. OK i 'm keeping it blank secondly should i put the nationality or i would keep it blank too.--Kkm010^as© 12:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalising comments removed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Monologues and scenes for actors from Shakespeare's works

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to suggest a website that has an extensive list of monologues and scenes from Shakespeare's works which can be useful to actors looking for material to work on or researchers. Monologues and scenes have a summary of the story leading to the scene, information on the type of monologue and location. I think what makes it interesting is also that the database can be searched by specific criteria, not only gender and type of monologue/scene but also by the number of characters (for scenes), emotions explored in the scene and main action. Here's the link: http://www.actorama.com/monologues/scenes/shakespeare Natkollar (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Promotional site requiring registration. SpigotMap 20:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for replying promptly to my posting. I respect your decision but I would like to make it clear that the website is not "promotional" and does not require registration. It would be great if you could provide a better reason or if you write that is promotional at least point out what it is promoting. The reason I thought it could be of interest is because it actually has one of the biggest databases of monologues from Shakespeare's works and the only searchable database of scenes. Also the website has been reviewed by two highly respected newsletters and research blogs, the Internet Scout Report and Researchbuzz.org, which consider it a useful resource:

http://www.researchbuzz.org/wp/database-of-monologues-and-scenes-from-films/

http://scout.wisc.edu/Archives/SPT--FullRecord.php?ResourceId=27810

Again, I respect your decision. Only it would be great if you could point out a better reason for not including it. Thank you Natkollar (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)