Talk:William Shakespeare: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:12, 6 June 2007

Latest revision as of 06:27, 30 July 2025

Line 1:

{{peerreviewTalk header}}

{{British English}}

{{skiptotoctalk}}

{{Article history

{{talkheader}}

{{ArticleHistory

|action1=FAC

|action1date=03:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare/archive1

|action1result=not promotedfailed

|action1oldid=26921282

|action2=PR

|action2date=12:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/William Shakespeare/archive1

|action2result=reviewed

|action2oldid=27056972

|action3=GAN

|action3date=01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

|action3link=Special:Diff/46792066

|action3result=listed

|action3result=passed

|action3oldid=46996708

|action4=WPR

|action4date=19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

|action4link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Shakespeare

|action4result=reviewed

|action4oldid=89866456

|action5=WAR

|action5date=16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

|action5link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/William Shakespeare

|action5result=failed

|action5link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/William Shakespeare

|action5oldid=136378885

|action6=PR

|gacat=writers

|action6date=13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

|currentstatus=GA

|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/William Shakespeare/archive2

|action6result=reviewed

|action6oldid=139189320

|action7=FAC

|action7date=16:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

|action7link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare/archive2

|action7result=failed

|action7oldid=141179300

|action8=FAC

|action8date=15:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

|action8link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare

|action8result=passed

|action8oldid=151178496

|aciddate=20 June 2006

|topic=Langlit

|currentstatus=FA

|maindate=October 10, 2007

|otd1date=2018-04-23|otd1oldid=837924350|otd2date=2019-04-23|otd2oldid=893807301

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Shakespeare, William|blp=no|1=

{{WikiProjectBanners

|1={{WikiProject WestElizabethan Midlands|class=GAtheatre}}

|2={{WikiProject E-theatreTheatre|classimportance=GAtop}}

{{WikiProject London|importance=high}}

|3={{WPBiography

{{WikiProject England|importance=top}}

|living=no

{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=top}}

|class=GA

{{WikiProject Poetry|importance=top}}

|priority=Top

{{WikiProject Folklore|importance=top}}

|core=yes

{{WikiProject Shakespeare|importance=top}}

|a&e-work-group=yes

{{WikiProject Biography |a&e-priority=top |a&e-work-group=yes |A-Class=fail |old-peer-review=yes |core=yes}}

|old-peer-review=yes

{{WikiProject Warwickshire|importance=Top}}

|A-Class=fail

{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}

{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Low |philosopher=yes |modern=yes |social=yes}}

}}

{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|

|4={{WPLondon|importance=high|class=GA}}

{{All time pageviews|77}}

|5={{WPE|class=GA|importance=top}}

{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2010 Top 50 Report|2010]]|6,648,475}}

|6={{Wikiproject Shakespeare|class=GA|importance=top}}

{{Top 25 Report|Apr 17 2016 (10th)}}

{{Annual readership}}

}}

{{Broken anchors|links=

{{todo|1}}

* <nowiki>[[Typesetting#Letterpress era|printing]]</nowiki> Anchor [[Typesetting#Letterpress era]] links to a specific web page: [[Letterpress printing]]. The anchor (#Letterpress era) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/535278057|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Letterpress era","appear":{"revid":32112587,"parentid":31020152,"timestamp":"2005-12-20T16:10:06Z","removed_section_titles":["The computer era"],"added_section_titles":["Letterpress era","Digital era","TeX"]},"disappear":{"revid":535278057,"parentid":535079345,"timestamp":"2013-01-28T03:08:44Z","removed_section_titles":["Letterpress era"],"added_section_titles":["Manual typesetting","Hot metal typesetting"]}} -->\

}}

{{archive box|

{{User:MiszaBot/config

* [[Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 1|Archive 1]]

|algo = old(90d)

* [[Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

*|archive = [[Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 3|Archive 3]]%(counter)d

|counter = 23

* [[Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 4|Archive 4]]

|maxarchivesize = 100K

<hr />

|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

* [[Wikipedia:Peer review/William Shakespeare|Peer Review]] (October 2005)

|minthreadstoarchive = 3

* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Shakespeare|Peer Review]] (November 2006)

|minthreadsleft = 3

}}

{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=Langlit|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|small=yes}}

{{FAOL|Hebrew|he:ויליאם שייקספיר|lang2=Spanish|link2=es:William Shakespeare|lang3=Croatian|link3=hr:William Shakespeare|lang4=French|link4=fr:William Shakespeare|small=yes}}

{{PastACID|June 20|2006|small=yes}}

{{oldpeerreview|small=yes}}

__TOC__

==Shakespeare the Enlightened Rosicrucian ==

I've once again removed the categorization, because there is no obvious connection between Shakespeare and the Rosicrucians. Categories should not be added to pages on which there is no information that would enlighten a reader as to why they are present. The category is sufficiently mysterious and, apparently, controversial, as to require prior discussion on the article's talk page before you should even consider re-adding it. - Nunh-huh 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

:Lusitanian has recently added the following utterance to the introduction to the Rosicrucian article: "Also, it becomes clear that this [[holy]] Order initiated and shaped the whole [[Renaissance]] movement of the western world through the works and cooperation of [[:Category:Rosicrucian Enlightenment|evolved individuals]] in the fields of arts, literature, religion and science since the [[14th century]], under the auspice of those Compassionate Ones in charge of mankind's evolution." This is ''way'' beyond mainstream thought. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 06:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[William Shakespeare#Early life|The Hoghton Will]] ==

It seems that Bob Bearman, Archivist at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, has "conclusively" disproved any connection with Shakespeare (which is disappointing, but there you go). His article ''Was William Shakespeare William Shakeshafte? Revisited'' appears in the Spring 2002 issue of ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' (Johns Hopkins University). This is a subscription-only product, so I can't read it, let alone cite it. Does anyone have access?

<s>While we're in this paragraph: re "asseted nexus". "Asset nexus" (the ambassadorial connection) would be a neat way of describing the supposed introduction from Shakespeare's schoolmaster, Cottam, to his old master Hoghton. As far as I know, "asseted nexus" means something else. Is it a typo? Can anybody put me right?</s>

*Thank you, [[User:Celithemis|Celithemis]], for putting that right.

--[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

:I have online access, but not from here! I'll have to wait till tomorrow. What do you want, a summary? [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 23:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the offer: it's just that I am slightly in awe of the definitive and certain "and is now accepted wisdom" in relation to the sojourn as a schoolmaster in Lancashire. Bearman's conclusions seem to undermine this and might be worth including for the sake of balance. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I too question any claim of "accepted wisdom" when it comes to Shakespeare's lost years. Is it POV or Weasel? or both? [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have access. I'll give it a read if I can. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 05:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

*Yes, please tell us what it says. But "accepted wisdom" is ridiculous: that has to go. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 06:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

::Well I had to wait till the library opened, since the online text does not reach back to 2002 due to "moving wall", apparently. Anyway, the gist of the argument is that Shakeshafte was a common name in the area of Hoghton's influence - Preston. There are several recorded William Shakeshaftes from local Shakeshafte families, and the size of the bequest suggests that Mr Shakeshafte was probably a middle aged man, not a youth. There is no "conclusive proof", but Bearman argues that it is unlikely that Shakeshafte was the bald bloke from Stratford. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

==Reputation==

:''This reverence has provoked an unforeseen negative reaction in the youth. In the 21st century most people in the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school at a young age, and there is an association by some students of his work with boredom beyond comprehension and of "high art" not easily appreciated by popular culture; an ironic fate considering the social mix of Shakespeare's audience.''

This sounds like somethig written from personal experiance, so I think that this needs a source as lots of things encountered in the school room on a hot summer's day brings "boredom beyond comprehension". Also I think some mention should be made in this section of the connection between rap and hip hop and Shakespeare:

*Douglas Lanier [http://unhmagazine.unh.edu/sp03/bookreviews.html Shakespeare and Modern Popular Culture] Oxford University Press, 2002

*:Various rap and hip-hop artists, too, have parodied Shakespeare, forming a rap Shakespeare sub-genre, although in some venues, Lanier points out that "the street culture of the modern Bronx is not that different from that of Elizabethan London." He also notes the stylistic similarities between rap and Shakespearian language: "both are poetry designed for performance, not the page; both feature language delivered against a strong metrical beat and display a mastery of rhythmic effects; both use what is for mainstream speakers of English a largely non-standard vocabulary, dense in allusions; both are self-consciously virtuosic in their wordplay. Rap's stylized qualities... provides an analogue for how Shakespearian English strikes the contemporary ear."

* http://arts.guardian.co.uk/edinburgh2002/story/0,,781676,00.html &mdash; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3051527.stm

* http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/content/3656/

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/shakespeare/60secondshakespeare/watch/midsummer_rap.shtml

--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

== Previous peer review issues to address before FA status ==

Many of the issues in the last peer review were unaddressed, so I am posting it in this more prominent place. Please add <nowiki>{{done}}</nowiki> tags to things that are done or discuss issues that may not need to be fixed. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

'''[[William Shakespeare]]'''

Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

'''Balloonman'''

* I don't like the opening sentence. It turns me off "greatest writer... greatest in Western Literature ... preeminent dramatist." Those may be true statements, but it reads like propaganda.

**I've fixed the opening a bit. That look better? [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]}

***{{done}} Yup, already dealt with by Adam. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

*"about 37 plays" immediately makes me wonder why "about." I suspect that you go into more detail later on, but without an explanation, it raises questions that you don't want to have raised. I'd leave the numbers out and go into more details later on.

**I've tried leaving them in, but giving a link to an article about the doubtful attributions. If this is too awkward, I'll cut 'em. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

***I've tried <nowiki>"wrote [[Shakespeare Apocrypha|about]] 38 plays"</nowiki> as a way of keeping the sentence uncluttered but also providing a reader who cares with detailed info on why we say have to say "about". Does that work? <small>Broken edit by AndyJones</small>

****{{done}} Covered in footnote 3. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

*I'm not a fan of long sentences. While it may be gramatically correct, I'd break break the sentence about his fame starting during his lifetime into two.

**{{done}} At least, done in the sense that I believe this sentence is no longer there. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

*Wordy, for example: ''He is counted among the very few playwrights who have excelled in both tragedy and comedy'' can be shortened to ''He is considered one of the few playwrights who excelled at both tragedy and comedy.'' "Counted among", "very few" and "have" don't add much to the article. "Very few?" How many is that? Who else is considered among the "very few?" Who makes this determination?

**{{done}} - already dealt with. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*"living language" another case of wordiness, people will assume living languages, you don't need the word "living".

**Don't think I agree that "living" is redundant. Translated into every language may well be wrong. Therefore considering it {{done}} [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

*The translation into every language also needs to be cited.

**{{done}}

**I don't like "modern languages" as the target article for this. I've removed the wikilink. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

*put the details about the number of articles after the last sentence in the intro or move that sentence up. It explains why the exact number of plays can't be known.

**{{done}} IMHO, since as mentioned above footnote 3 seems to cover it, and what more is there to say? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*The first 3 sentences in the Early life start off with probably... probably... and presumably, without any sources/citations this looks like OR.

**I've tweaked this, and asked for an attribution on the talk page. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

***{{done}} Yup, already solved. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*"Shakespeare's last two plays, '''play1''' and '''play2''', were written in 1613."

**Is this sentence still there? It refers the two collaborations with John Fletcher, namely [[The Two Noble Kinsmen]] and [[Henry VIII (play)|Henry VIII]]. Actually, trying to source this it's difficult to say with any certainty that they were ''written'' in 1613. The Arden Henry VIII points out that the first recorded performance was at the Globe in 1613 (when it was described as a new play) but also speculates that it may have been performed at Blackfriars earlier. The matter is contentious, as you can see from the wikipedia page where an Oxfordian user is edit warring to suggest a far earlier date (Oxford died 1604). Sorry to clutter Balloonman's contributions with this guff, by the way: if I knew how best to fix this I'd do it myself rather than blathering here! [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 09:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

***{{notdone}}. No action required. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

*I think each point has been dealt with. 1) The article has been mostly copyedited. 2) We agreed long sentences were not a problem ''per se'', but only poorly put together ones. We shouldn't assume our readers have a stunted reading level. 3) This is contentious. People do not need references to be aware of these claims: most first hear them in school, many elsewhere. Adding references only serves to appease those uncomfortable with the claims, although they make very little difference. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

**I agree as regards (1) and (2). But as regards (3): we are aiming for featured article status: requiring sources isn't unreasonable, even for things which all of us here at the talk page are happy to accept as obviously true. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

***On the other hand, looking at the current version of the article I don't see a lot of unsourced peacockery, therefore: {{done}}. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'''[[User:Nat91|Nat91]]'''

*I agree with most of the things Balloonman said. Sentences like "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" need to be cited (although we all know he probably is). That sentence has a citation but I'm not sure if those online encyclopedias are a reliable source.

**I don't have a problem with those sources ''as such'', but I suggest that we add a print source, also. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

***I don't see the point. People are not going to check this source and think, "Oh. This says so; he must be." Any reference will be extraneous. If anyone disagrees on this point, a reference will not likely change his mind. The only possible purpose for it would be to appease reviewers. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

****Fair enough. {{notdone}} [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*In my opinion, the article needs a lot of citations, for example, "there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today" certainly needs a reference.

**This one still a problem: but it's correct and easily sourcable: I don't have any of the biographies here, but they all say this. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

***I agree. They are all consistent on this point. The only biography of Shakespeare I have at hand is a bad one. I don't want to mention it for fear of embarrassment. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

****{{done}} [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*I thought it was a very known fact that he was born and died on April 23. Is there a reliable source for that? The article says "baptised April 26, 1564." [[User:Nat91|Nat91]] 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

**Nobody knows when he was born.[[User:24.77.19.233|24.77.19.233]] 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

***Birth statement seems to have been decided on after a lot of debate over what scholars know and don't know. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

****{{done}} agreed. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

'''[[User:Yannismarou|Yannismarou]]'''

*"William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564 – died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language,[2] and the world's preeminent dramatist." The world's preeminent dramatist? Are we sure about that? Better than Aeschylus and Sophocles? And if yes why? I may be wrong but I don't feel comfortable with the superlative.

**{{done}} seems to have been addressed as this is now referenced, as previously it wasn't. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

**{{done}}. Aeschylus who? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

*"(see Shakespeare Apocrypha for plays uncertainly attributed to Shakespeare)". My opinion is that this link should be somewhere in "Plays" and not in the lead.

**{{done}} This is no longer in the lead. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

*By the way, do you have in mind the issue of Time devoted to the "bard" ("Will power")? There were 2-3 excellent articles there? And one comparing him with ... I don't remember ... Wait ... I'll find him ... Yes ... With Middleton! A very interesting assessment about the Bard's talent.

**{{notdone}}. I don't think we need to be concerned to find that specific source. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*"Early life" is undercited. In the next section I see a {citationneeded}.

**{{done}} <small>I added in the early life citations a few months back.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 12:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)</small>

*"He appears to have moved across the Thames River to Southwark sometime around 1599." Source here?

**{{done}}--[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*"Later years". No citations here. I see the article is overall undercited, so from now own I'll name seperate sections.

**{{done}}

*In "Other poems" both paragraphs start with "In addition". Repetion of the same forms of prose.

**{{done}}

*For a playwright like Shakespeare "Style" is under-analyzed. I expect here some modern assessments, further analysis, and comparaisons with other important playwrights (contemporaries of him or of the near centuries). Another suggestion is to keep the section concise and, instead, to create a sub-article.

**{{done}}. Dealt with at length. See various discussions below. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*Reading "Reputation" I thought again about this issue of TIME and an aricle named "Shakespeare Inc." I think.

**{{notdone}}. I don't think we need to be concerned to find that specific source. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*What I mean is that the modern aspects of the bard's reputations and the commercial success and effect of his name should be treated in this or in a subarticle.

**{{notdone}} a lengthy section on Shakespeare's influence in the modern age would quickly degenerate into a trivia section. The reputation section adequately covers his reception in later ages; essentially his plays are performed with updated stagecraft. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*"Identity" needs better referencing and some modern assessments by modern scholars.

**{{notdone}}. There's no section with that title in the article now. Nothing to do. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*Wow! "See also" is huge. And most of the links there are already linked above!

**{{done}} Took out repetitive links and made list into two columns. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

*In "Further Reading" we should have the ISBNs.

**Before I fix this, I want to know if there are any books in there that shouldn't be. What does everyone think? Is this section ok? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

***I agree it needs wittling & I've started a bit. Not averse to adding some either. Maybe more discussion needed? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::The ISBNs I've just added are works I've used for footnotes. Is this duplication? --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*Are all "External links" links necessary? Could they be better organized?

**{{done}} greatly reduced their number. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

*You know my obsession with inboxes! I think you could think about adding some here from the Bard's work, if you can relate them to specific sections and analyses.--[[User:Yannismarou|Yannismarou]] 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

**I agree, I've got a few quotes in mind that I could add. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

***Added a Ben Jonson quote to the reputation section, but am struggling to decide on a quote from one of his plays. It needs to be well-chosen and well-placed. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

****Use one of his best-known plays: Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Othello, The Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado about Nothing, and the like. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*****Suggestions: "What potions have I drunk of siren tears..."; "Farewell, thou art too dear for my possessing..."; Hamlet's advice to the actors (especially appropriate); one of Macbeth's laments; a sililoquy from Romeo and Juliet; one of Richard II's speeches; a clown's speech (preferrably Falstaff's, the Fool from King Lear's, or Dogbert's); something from Midsummer Night's Dream (maybe Puck). You get the idea. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

******[[Image:Dogbert icon.gif]]?

*{{done}} (Is Dogbert Shakespearean?) [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*At the risk of starting an ugly debate, it seems that the authorship paragraph is uncommonly short compared to the other "speculations" sections. It has been cut down so much that the general whys and wherefores behind the debate are not even mentioned. If this is to be a short summary of the main article, shouldn't a few of the more prominent topics within the subject be mentioned? Perhaps a statement or two about why the subject even exists?[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

**Rather than digging that up again, I think we should stick to the plan of fixing what was seen as wrong in the old peer review right now. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'''Notes by [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]}'''

*Please see [[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer|automated]] peer review suggestions [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/November 2006#William Shakespeare|here]]. Thanks, [[User:AZPR|AZ]]&nbsp;_{[[User talk:AndyZ|t]]} 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this to FA status! [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:Oh, god, I remember that... I went through, added a fair number of citations, but couldn't find all of them and noone else was around at the time. Glad to see this is finally moving forward. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

==Style and Reputation==

In my opinion, the style and reputation sections will be the hardest. I suggest we use only the most rigorous citations for these sections, meaning highly reliable academic citations. Is that ok with people?--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:Highly reliable academic citations are most certainly not ok! [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

::Hmm, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I meant we should aim for using book citations by established scholars (which doesn't mean overly obtuse academic articles and such). I just feel we should steer clear of using website citations for these sections b/c they're going to be controversial. Is that acceptable? If not, why? Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Both sections are heavily under-cited at the moment. There are chapters on reputation in two of the Cambridge University Press "Companions" which I have here. I'll look through those and see what I can source from there. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started on the above. I've got a problem with the following extract, though. It strikes me as clearly (almost self-evidently) true, but I cannot source it:

::''This reverence has provoked an unforeseen negative reaction in the youth. In the 21st century most people in the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school at a young age, and there is an association by some students of his work with boredom beyond comprehension and of "high art" not easily appreciated by popular culture.''

Does anyone have any thoughts? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::I tracked down some solid references for that section and added them in. Do they work for you?--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Excellent. Well {{done}}. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, if I'm correct, all that's left is the Further Reading ISBNs and the Style section. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 07:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

*Style section now {{done}}

*New influences section {{done}}

*Reputation section {{done}}

*Therefore, are we ready to proceed to a final peer review? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against it, unless anyone has anything they want to address beforehand. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::We're ready for peer review.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Let's go ahead and do it now, so that there is no lull in the process. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Types of plays ==

There are two different listings of the types of plays written by Shakespeare. In this article it states that he wrote four kinds, History, Comedy, Tragedy and Romance. While in a linked article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_plays Shakespeare's Plays]in jean It only states the first three listed above. I have always been taught to use the first three and that all his ''Romances'' could fit into the other categories. Still this may just be a matter of opinion so I changed nothing in the articles.

*Yes, you can classify the plays in a billion ways: some people are fond of separating the "romances" from the other comedies, others carve out the "problem plays", or identify some-or-other plays as "tragi-comedies". No-one uses these labels with any consitency. The only proper course for an encyclopedia is to classify according to the First Folio (comedies, tragedies, histories) then to deal with all the other nuances in the article's text. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

::I'd also prefer to go with the traditional comedies, tragedies, histories breakdown.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

**I agree with AnyJones - the only proper designation should be the traditional types as set down by the first folio - comedies, tragedies and histories, then explain the more modern designations within the context of the play pages themselves. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== Typo ==

I don't seem to be able to edit this page, but can someone fix the typo "contempories"? Cheers.

[[User:Dieseldaddy|Dieseldaddy]] 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. I think it's blocking you because of how new you are. You should be able to edit this page yourself in a few days. Thanks for the help. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== Signatures ==

Something should be said about the fact that the only documented samples of his handwriting are 6 different "Shakespeare signatures" and none of them spell "Shakespeare" the same way. Especially because there's a picture of one. [[User:Sydneysaurus|Sydneysaurus]] 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== Timeline ==

I feel like there should be some sort of rough visual timeline of historical events and Shakespeare's events. However, it should be clear that the information isn't known for sure. [[User:Sydneysaurus|Sydneysaurus]] 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== sourcing format ==

"Greenblatt (2004:338) is persuasive that the "equivocator" arriving..." This quote from the religion section isn't following our sourcing method. Can anyone fix this? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:I am the guilty editor—fixed. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 05:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

==Oops==

Sorry about that ANdy, I'm tired and I didn't see the ref tags. I'll be watchful next time ;) [[User:Elenseel|Elenseel]] 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

*Don't worry. Thanks for your vigilance. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

==Question==

First, excuse my ignorance. How are we from crowning this with Featured status? What steps are required?

I should also like to make a suggestion: in the reputation section we should add a reference to Shaw, as evidence of Shakespeare's pre-eminence. His contempt of bardolatry at least shows it to have existed.

By the way, I read Henry VI pt. 3 today, and saw for myself the passage Greene used in his parody. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 11:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the plan was to resolve all the old peer review issues, then resolve whatever else we see might be wrong. Then go for one last peer review and then FA. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::[[User:Wrad|Wrad]]'s plan sounds good to me. As for the FA process, we have to nominate it as a [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates|featured article candidates]]. B/c this is such a high-profile article, I'd recommend that several of us both nominate it and follow the article through the FAC process.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. I'm sure it will get a ''lot'' of thorough reviews. I also plan to leave a short message on the talk page of all project members notifying them of each step's beginning and inviting them to participate. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

References to Shaw now added. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Top 50 ==

Just wanted to point out that this article is one of the [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=500&month=05%2F2007&mode=view top 50] most-viewed articles on wikipedia. Making it an FA is sure going to be great for this encyclopedia. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::I totally agree. This is a biggie.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I should add, though, that seeing some of the articles ahead of Shakespeare makes me question the priorities of too many people in the world. [[List of Konoha ninja]]? [[Pokémon Diamond and Pearl]]? Still, at least we're ahead of [[Paris Hilton]] (even if only barely ahead).--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Style and influence ==

I have been troubled by the style section, which seemed to me to be focusing not on Shakespeare's style but on his influence (and since I originally wrote most of that section, any fault there rests with me). To try and fix this, I've separated that section into a style section and an influence section. I've also added more info and references to the section. Please let me know what people think about this.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:For my part, I think the new organization works better. I think perhaps the middle two paragraphs of the "Influence" section might work better as a separate section titled "Dramaturgy" or "Stagecraft," placed between the Style and Influence sections. I had also been thinking about the contents of the style section, and I would like to add some more information, to wit

*his extensive use of couplets during the 1590s (and as late as "All's Well")

*the tendency in his early plays for rhetoric/poetry to overwhelm character and

*his subordination of rhetoric to character in the Jacobean plays

*his attempts to respond to or mimic the satiric drama in the early Jacobean plays

*the highly idiosyncratic verse of the final plays

Ordinarily, of course, I'd be bold and do it without prior approval, but since I'm a latecomer to this I wanted to get some thoughts from those of you who have been working on this page first![[User:Jlittlet|Jlittlet]] 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I'd be okay with having subsections in the influence section (but to do that, the overall section would need to be expanded). Please feel free to add in your other suggestions. Just be sure to add good citations b/c we'll be called on it during the FA process if they are missing. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Technical Difficulties Regarding the Influence Section ==

I was looking at this page to do a report, and after a little clicking around I realized that when this article is accessed as a redirection from a search for "Shakespeare", the Influence section is visible, while this entire section is missing when the user searches for

"William Shakespeare". Obviously some kind of simple keyword editing problem, and i'm sure it can be fixed easily.

[[User:Sk8rsam224|Sk8rsam224]] 02:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Sam K (sk8rsam224) June 3 2007 10:05 PM EST

Let me do some experimenting... Hmm. Worked fine for me. Maybe just a temporary glitch in the database. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

== Started new peer review ==

I've started the new peer review. The link is at the top of this page, or simply go to [[Wikipedia:Peer_review/William_Shakespeare]]. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== References ==

Just looking over our references. If we want FA they need to be more consistent. We have some refs that start with titles, and others that start with authors. Also, our web citations should probably all use the web cite template, since they also vary more than an FA should. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*Fair enough. Are there any policies/guidelines/MoS on which style is better? It's an easy enough job for one of us, if we know what to change. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 13:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

::I've just responded to a new <nowiki> {{fact}} request using the standard {{cite book}}</nowiki> template. I like it because it's easy to deploy and because the output is standardized, but the [[WP:CITET]] page warns that some "editors find them annoying". As only an occasional contributor, I'm not pushing this but deferring to those who have been putting in so much hard work recently. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== [[William Shakespeare#Style|Style]] ==

==The modern reception of Shakespeare==

I've temporarily removed ''At the end of each scene in his plays, Shakespeare also uses a couplet, in which there are two rhyming lines of poetry'' from the end of the "[[William Shakespeare#Style|style]]" paragraph. It seemed to sit rather uneasily there, separated as it was from the "rhythm and verse" section. It could probably do with a citation as well. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Remsense, it would be beneficial if you had actually read the body of the article before editing the lead and removing other editors' contributions. The material regarding the modern reception of Shakespeare is thoroughly covered in the section "Critical reputation" and serves as a fair and balanced overview of how Shakespeare has been perceived, particularly in the age of modern drama since the 19th century.

:Hello. Yes, I appreciate your concerns, but my sentence was quite true. If you take out a copy of Romeo and Juliet or perhaps Julius Caesar, you would see that at the end of each scene, there is a couplet! I remember my English teacher telling us about this in a lecture before; this is a characteristic of a Shakespearean tragedy. Now, for comedies, I really don't know; I haven't read any. You also said that you need a "citation". Now I really can't say anything about plays but [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=couplet+shakespeare Google search for "couplet shakespeare"] mentions plenty of sonnets. Does this help you?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The mention of [[bardolatry]], a term coined by George Bernard Shaw—a Nobel Prize laureate in literature—is far from undue. On the contrary, it highlights a critical aspect of Shakespeare's legacy: the tension between reverence and critique. The modern reception of Shakespeare should include this nuanced perspective, especially given the transformative influence of Ibsen on drama and the contrasting views of [[T. S. Eliot]], who found Shakespeare's "primitiveness" a hallmark of his enduring modernity. These contrasting views are crucial for understanding how Shakespeare's relevance has been debated in modern theatrical contexts.

::I did a search, and found a good site [http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl339/verseprose.html here], but it is careful to say that couplets only occur at the in ''some'' of the speeches and scenes. I don't know if this is notable enough... [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To excise this material risks creating an overly hagiographic portrayal of Shakespeare. Wikipedia's objective is to present a balanced narrative, not one that veers into idolization by suppressing critical perspectives. Including this context acknowledges both Shakespeare's towering achievements and the evolving discourse about his place in literature.

:::What exactly do you mean by "notable"? Is there a particular definition of "notable" to follow here?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Fixed. Thanks, [[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]], for your understanding response, here and on my talk page. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead should reflect this nuanced understanding, which is consistent with the evidence presented in the body of the article. To ignore such discussions may inadvertently contribute to the very [[bardolatry]] that Shaw critiqued. --[[User:Msbmt|Msbmt]] ([[User talk:Msbmt|talk]]) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, if it happened in every scene, maybe. Some scenes just isn't notable enough. I'm sure Shakespeare did almost everything in some of his scenes. If there was a source that said "all", that would be notable, if not for this article, then for the [[Shakespeare's plays]] article. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:At the very least we should mention bardolatry somewhere. For example, {{tq|The modern reception of Shakespeare reflects both admiration and critique, with [[George Bernard Shaw]] coining the term [[bardolatry]] to challenge excessive reverence.}} --[[User:Msbmt|Msbmt]] ([[User talk:Msbmt|talk]]) 02:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:The lead is meant to be a brief summary of key facts about a subject, proportional to their representation in the article body. Very often, it absolutely should not describe nuances of this kind as there is simply no time to do so without throwing the reader's initial assessment totally out of whack. Juxtaposing a well-cited claim with one that is contrary or dissenting but clearly less well represented is an antipattern. Such nuances belong in the body . <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::Nobody is ignoring anything. The "bardolatory" criticism of Shaw '''is''' already mentioned in the ''Critical reputation'' section, which points to two, fuller, sub-articles where it is covered in greater detail. To lob an uncontextualised mention of Ibsen into the lead would be of no help to the reader. [[User:KJP1|KJP1]] ([[User talk:KJP1|talk]]) 07:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

== Information on William Shakespeare ==

Thanks, Moonraker. "Many" is fine. Basically it just boils down to the fact that you have to have a source. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To write a creative writing [[Special:Contributions/103.163.67.9|103.163.67.9]] ([[User talk:103.163.67.9|talk]]) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

== Unsourced Shakespeare ==

:If what you read in the article didn't help, try [[:Category:William Shakespeare]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a list of unsourced comments in this article. Some are true and just require sourcing just for form's sake, and many could in my view happily remain unsourced: others strike me as contentious, possible OR, or unencylopedically worded:

*He is one of the few playwrights considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy

*his plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, and poetic grandeur with philosophical depth.

**Since this is in the lead, and seems to be a summarizing statement, it probably doesn't need a source. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*many of his quotations and neologisms have passed into everyday usage in English and other languages.

**Same as above, sourced later in article. Lead statements don't necessarily need sources. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in April 1564,

**This is sourced later on in the same paragraph, and is kind of broadly known, anyway. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*the son of John Shakespeare, a successful glover and alderman from Snitterfield, and Mary Arden, a daughter of the gentry. *His birth is assumed to have occurred at the family house on Henley Street.

**All but the Henley Street thing is sourced later in the same paragraph. I think we should cut the Henley street, personally. I just read a source saying this is contested and no one really knows. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*The record of Shakespeare's christening is dated 26 April of that year.

**cited earlier in the paragraph. I fixed these, but now i think it might be over-referenced. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*At the age of eighteen, he married Anne Hathaway, aged twenty-six, on 28 November 1582.

*One document identified her as being "of Temple Grafton," near Stratford, and the marriage may have taken place there.

*Two neighbours of Hathaway posted bond that there were no impediments to the marriage.

*There appears to have been some haste in arranging the ceremony, presumably because Anne was three months pregnant.

*On 26 May 1583, Shakespeare's first child, Susanna, was baptised at Stratford.

*Twin children, a son, Hamnet, and a daughter, Judith, were baptised on 2 February 1585.

*Hamnet died aged 11 in the Black Plague in 1596; his date of death is not known, but he was buried on 11 August.

**You're right about these. Everything from here to my last comment needs a source. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*By late 1594 Shakespeare was an actor, writer and part-owner of a playing company known as the Lord Chamberlain's Men

*like others of the period, the company took its name from its aristocratic sponsor, Lord Chamberlain.

*The group became popular enough for the new king James I (1603) to adopt the company himself, after which it became known as the King's Men.

*Shakespeare's writing shows him indeed to be a man of the theatre, with many phrases, words, and references to the stage.

*By 1596 Shakespeare had moved to the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate,

*and by 1598 he appeared at the top of a list of actors in Every Man in His Humour written by Ben Jonson.

*By 1598, his name also began to appear on the title pages of his plays, presumably as a selling point.

*By 1604, he had moved north of the river, lodging just north of St Paul's Cathedral with a Huguenot family named Mountjoy. He helped arrange a marriage between the Mountjoys' daughter and their apprentice Stephen Bellott. Bellott later sued his father-in-law for defaulting on part of the promised dowry, and Shakespeare was called as a witness.

*Various documents recording legal affairs and commercial transactions show that Shakespeare grew rich enough during his stay in London to buy a property in Blackfriars, London and own the second-largest house in Stratford, New Place.

*Each year on his claimed birthday, a new quill pen is placed in the writing hand of the bust.

*He may have written the epitaph on his tombstone:

*Like many of his contemporaries, Shakespeare based many of his plays on the works of other playwrights and reworked earlier stories and historical material.

*Hamlet (c. 1601) is probably a reworking of an older, lost play (the so-called Ur-Hamlet),

*and King Lear is an adaptation of an earlier play, called King Leir.

*Shakespeare's plays tend to be placed into three main stylistic groups: >early romantic comedies and histories (such as A Midsummer Night's Dream and Henry IV, Part 1); >middle period romantic comedies and tragedies (including his most famous tragedies, Othello, Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear, as well as "problem plays" such as Troilus and Cressida); >later romances (such as The Winter's Tale and The Tempest). The earlier plays range from broad comedy to historical nostalgia. The middle-period plays have grander themes, addressing issues such as betrayal, murder, lust, power, and ambition. The late romances have redemptive plotlines with ambiguous endings and magic and other fantastical elements. However, the borders between these genres are never clear.

*Some of Shakespeare's plays first appeared in print as a series of quartos; but most remained unpublished until 1623 when the posthumous First Folio was published by John Heminges and Henry Condell, two actors who had been in Shakespeare's company.

*The traditional division of his plays into tragedies, comedies, and histories follows the pattern of the First Folio.

**Isn't the Folio its own source here? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*It is at this point that stage directions, punctuation and act divisions enter his plays, setting the trend for further future editorial decisions.

*Modern criticism has also labelled some of his plays "problem plays", or tragi-comedies, because they defy easy categorisation, or perhaps purposefully break conventions. The term "romances" has also been preferred for the later comedies.

*There are many controversies about the exact chronology of Shakespeare's plays. The lack of an authoritative print version of his plays during his lifetime accounts for part of the textual problem, the difficulty of identifying which plays he wrote, and for the different textual versions of some of his plays. The textual problem became a major concern for most modern editions. Textual corruptions also resulted from printers' errors, compositors' misreadings, or wrongly scanned lines from the source material. Additionally, in an age before standardised spelling, Shakespeare often wrote a word several times in a different spelling, exacerbating transcribers' confusions. Modern scholars believe Shakespeare revised his plays throughout the years, sometimes producing two different versions of one play.

*Shakespeare's sonnets are a collection of 154 poems that deal with such themes as love, beauty, and mortality. All but two first appeared in the 1609 publication entitled Shakespeare's Sonnets; numbers 138 ("When my love swears that she is made of truth") and 144 ("Two loves have I, of comfort and despair") had previously been published in a 1599 miscellany entitled The Passionate Pilgrim. The Sonnets were written over a number of years, probably beginning in the early 1590s.

*Besides his sonnets, Shakespeare also wrote three known longer poems: Venus and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece and A Lover's Complaint. These poems appear to have been written either in an attempt to win the patronage of a rich benefactor (as was common at the time) or as the result of such patronage. For example, The Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis were both dedicated to Shakespeare's patron, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton.

*In addition, Shakespeare wrote the short poem The Phoenix and the Turtle. The anthology The Passionate Pilgrim was attributed to him upon its first publication in 1599, but in fact only five of its poems are by Shakespeare and the attribution was withdrawn in the second edition.

*{{unsigned|AndyJones}}

== Quartos ==

:Andy: I should point out that, per [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." While a number of the items you listed do indeed need citations, we shouldn't feel the need to cite statements like "The record of Shakespeare's christening is dated 26 April of that year" which are unlikely to be challenged. Doing so can quickly fill up an article with cite references, which can make an article difficult to read. Best, --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Following-up this discussion: [[Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_23#Quartos]]

Andy (I'm assuming this is your list after looking at the history). Could you put a citation needed template by all of these? It would help me. Many of them may appear not to be cited, but are covered under later citations. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I said, then, that I would keep an eye out for any contrary sources and, as it happens, in my reading this week, I came across one. A [[WP:RS]] by Barbara Mowat says that Henry VI Part 3 appeared not in a Quarto but in an Octavo. I don't think the article needs to stress the point: but does anyone agree maybe "The others had already appeared in quarto versions—flimsy books made from sheets of paper folded twice to make four leaves" should become "Most of the others had already appeared in quarto versions—flimsy books made from sheets of paper folded twice to make four leaves" or something similar? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 19:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Since the list is so huge, I'm going to address them one by one. within your text. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*In the absence of any replies here, I'll make that change shortly. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 22:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

**{{done}} [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

**:The discussion was unanimous. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 12:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

== Call for NPOV and Stronger Sources in Sexuality Section ==

Ok, read my comment for individual exceptions. Other than that, I have put citation needed tags on all remaining sources listed (and a few more). I think we can assume that when they are all gone then the issues brought up above have been resolved. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is problematic to make definitive claims about Shakespeare’s bisexuality based solely on speculative interpretations by a handful of modern critics. The Wikipedia article (or stub) on this subject makes no mention of these commentators, yet their readings have subtly shaped a narrative that is far from universally accepted. The five most frequently cited figures in this debate are:

*Yes, sorry all, I had to leave Wikipedia for a real-life reason before I'd really finished what I was doing on the above so I just pressed "save". Once I've finished this list I also promise to start going through with strikeout tags, or maybe with {done} and {notdone} tags. My thinking, of course, is to ensure that we don't go into the FA process with any statements on the page which are unsourced when they need sourcing, and that we remove any OR. I note Alabamaboy's point and of course I agree with you up to a point, although there's still the question of where we actually draw the line. Wrad, your comments are really useful. Also, I have a copy of Schoenbaum on my desk at home, so I can probably source any unsourced biographical stuff, this evening. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A. L. Rowse – One of the earliest academic biographers to suggest that Shakespeare may have had romantic feelings for a young man, based on his reading of the Sonnets. While he did not use the term "bisexual", his work was highly controversial and largely speculative.

Harold Bloom – A major American literary critic who explored the emotional and erotic ambiguity in Shakespeare’s sonnets but refrained from explicitly labeling Shakespeare’s sexuality. Bloom emphasized psychological and aesthetic interpretations over biographical claims.

Stephen Greenblatt – A leading voice in New Historicism who acknowledged the homoerotic undertones in the Sonnets but avoided definitive conclusions. He proposed that Shakespeare's emotional life was likely fluid, but again, this remains speculative.

Stanley Wells – A prominent Shakespeare scholar who, especially in his later work, has argued more openly for the plausibility of Shakespeare's bisexuality, particularly through his editorial work on All the Sonnets of Shakespeare (2010).

Oscar Wilde – Though not a modern scholar per se, Wilde was one of the first public intellectuals to suggest a romantic dimension to Shakespeare's relationship with the so-called “Fair Youth”, notably in The Portrait of Mr. W. H. (1889), a fictionalized and highly stylized narrative.

What makes this interpretative trend particularly intriguing is that the first two prominent proponents of this view—Harold Bloom and Stephen Greenblatt—are of Jewish origin. This is relevant because Shakespeare’s work, notably The Merchant of Venice, has long been perceived as containing anti-Jewish sentiment, particularly through the character of Shylock.

Other plays where Jewish themes or stereotypes appear, albeit more marginally or allegorically, include:

The Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe is often discussed in contrast to Shakespeare’s Merchant, but some scholars note Shakespeare’s engagement with the broader Elizabethan “Jewish question”.

In Much Ado About Nothing, there is a passing line about Jews that reflects the casual anti-Semitic idioms of the time.

Shakespeare’s England did not officially allow Jews to live openly, so his representations are drawn from cultural stereotypes rather than real-life interaction.

Given this context, it is worth at least acknowledging the ironic tension in how modern interpretations—especially those emphasizing personal identity categories foreign to the Elizabethan worldview—are projected back onto a playwright whose own texts could be read as problematic from those very perspectives.

:A few points:

:* Can you sign your posts, use four tildes at the end;

:* Can you highlight the "definitive claims about Shakespeare’s bisexuality" you say the article is making? I'm not seeing them;

:* What point are you trying to make re. the "Jewish origin" of two of the critics? It's unclear, and frankly troubling on first reading. [[User:KJP1|KJP1]] ([[User talk:KJP1|talk]]) 17:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agoreion did sign, but then removed it, presumably by mistake. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 18:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

== British vs. American Spelling ==

:::{{U|Agoreion}} - you’re very welcome to strike the whole comment, but it’s confusing if you only strike part of it. [[User:KJP1|KJP1]] ([[User talk:KJP1|talk]]) 05:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

== Proposed "Sources Books" Addition ==

This article isn't consistent when it comes to British vs. American spelling. In some places it uses, British ("characterisation", "baptised") and others it uses American ("popularized" and "capitalized"). Since the Bard is British. I'm leaning that way, but it doesn't really matter, just as long as it is consistent. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

{{edit COI|D|[see below]}}

I really dont care - it's just that Wiki redirects to the American spelling. I thought - shouldn't we be consistant with Wikipedia? But I certainly won't make an issue of this if you want it Brit. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Add the following reference to the "Sources Books" section:

Well, Wikipedia doesn't care as long as it's consistent. Let me see if I can find the policy on it... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English Here it is] After looking at it again, I guess it should be British... Yes. I'm going to move per the MOS guideline that the spelling standard be British for this article, on the basis that the Bard is a Brit. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[[David Medina (political advisor)]] (2025). https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/david-medina/shakespeares-greatest-love-disruption-curios/

Yes - that looks to be correct - YIKES! That means all 5000 articles related to Shakespeare need a british spell check![[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 02:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Washington, DC: Disruption Books. [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] <bdi>[[Special:BookSources/9781633311060|9781633311060]]</bdi>

(This recent book, which received a positive Kirkus Review, tells the true, uncensored love story of William Shakespeare and Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton.)

:Tough call, but necessary imho. If we can't insist on using British spelling for Shakespeare - of all people - we may as well abandon it altogether. But are there really 5,000 articles related to Shakespeare? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[[User:DavidStevenMedina|DavidStevenMedina]] ([[User talk:DavidStevenMedina|talk]]) 03:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think this is the huge problem you're worrying about. Most Shakespeare-related articles are already British spelling, and I correct Americanisms whenever I notice them creeping in. Yes, policy is that this article, being about a British subject, should be in British English, and I think we someone should go through and make it consistent, in view of the fact that we're about to apply for FA status. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:That section is for books that are currently used as sources ''in the article.'' Also replied at [[Talk:Sexuality_of_William_Shakespeare#Proposed_"Further_reading"_section_addition]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 05:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually - I don't hink it's a huge problem - just a dauting task. Thankfully, we can rely on the Brits to watch for these spelling variations.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)